I Esdras: from origin to translation

I

ESDRAS

From Origin to Translation

SOCIETY O F BIBLICAL

LITERATURE

SEPTUAGINT AND COGNATE STUDIES

Series Editor Bernard A. Taylor

Editorial Advisory Committee N. Fernandez Marcos, Madrid I. Soisalon - Soininen, Helsinki Ε. Τον, Jerusalem

Number 47 I Esdras

From Origin to Translation

by Zipora Talshir

SERIES

I ESDRAS

From Origin to Translation

by Zipora Talshir

Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta, Georgia

I ESDRAS

From Origin to Translation

by Zipora Talshir

Copyright © 1999 by the Society of Biblical Literature All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests tor permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Scholars Press, P.O. Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333-0399, USA.

Library of Congress Catalogtng-in-Pubtication Data Talshir, Zipora. I. Esdras : from origin to translation / by Zipora Talshir. p. cm. — (Society of Biblical Literature septuagint and cognate studies series ; no. 47) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-88414-006-7 (cloth : alk. paper) I.Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st—Criticism, Textual. 2. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Title: First Esdras. III. Title: One Esdras. IV. Series: Septuagint and cognate sutdies series ; no. 47. BS1715.2.T35 1999 229'. 106—dc21 99-38500 CIP

5 4 3 2

08 07 06 05

Printed in the United Suites of America on acid free paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD

xi

CHAPTER ONE: THE COMPOSITION OF I ESDRAS

1

Introduction: I Esdras' raison d'etre - the Story of the Youths

3

I. Beginning and End of the Book

6

a. End of the Book

6

b. Beginning of the Book

9

1. Can it be Proved that I Esd is Part of a Complete Translation ofChr-Ezr-Neh?

9

2. Is there any Evidence that I Esd Originally Began with Josiah's Passover? 3. The Evidence of I Esd 1:21-22

II. Continuity of Chr-Ezr and Ezr-Neh

13 15

21

a. Connection between Chr and Ezr-Neh

22

b. Continuity of Ezr-Neh

31

III. The Position of the Letter of Complaint to Aitaxerxes

35

a. The Sequence of Events

35

b. Preamble to the Correspondence: 2:15-16 (Ezr 4:6-11)

36

c. The Final Verse 2:25 (Ezr 4:24) and the Chronological Sequence. 38 d. The Insertion of the Temple into the Letter

39

e. Duplication of the Founding of the Temple

41

^

1 Esdras

IV. The Interpolation of the Story of the Youths

42

a. Duplication in the Sequence of Events

42

b. Cyrus' Reign and Darius' Reign

43

c. Darius' Permit - Return of the Vessels, Building of the Temple and the Rebuilding of the City d. Zerubbabel's Role in I Esdras

V. The Story of the Youths a. Composition of the Story of the Youths

44 46

58 59

1. The Scope of the Story

59

2. The Genre

60

3. Wine - King - Women

64

4. The Discourse on Women

69

5. The Fourth Theme - Truth

70

6. God of Truth

73

7. 'The Historical Setting

77

8. Second Part of the Story

79

b. The Original Language of the Story of the Youths (in collaboration with David Talshir)

81

1. The Kind of Greek Used in the Story

83

2. Traces of the Process of Translation

88

(a) Issues of Form

88

(b) Linguistic Patterns

90

(c) Issues of Content

92

3. Hebrew or Aramaic?

94

(a) Linguistic Patterns

95

(b) Issues of Content

99

4. The Language of the Redaction Conclusion

102 106

v u

Contents CHAPTER TWO. I ESDRAS' VORLAGE COMPARED WITH 2 CHR 35-36, EZRA 1-10 A N D NEH 8

111

Introduction

13

1

I. Variants

1

6

a. Reading Variants

116

b. Phonetic Variants

118

c. Graphic Variants

119

d. Combined Graphic and Contextual Variants

120

e. Contextual Variants f. Stylistic Variants

26 1

28

II. Word-Order

132

III. Additions / Omissions

133

a. Function Words

142

b. Adnominals

144

1. Quantifiers

144

(a) ‫כל‬

144

(b) ‫שאר‬

146

2. Pronouns

‫י‬

'46

(a) Pronominal suffixes .,

146

(b) Demonstratives

147

(c) Noun / Pronoun

147

(d) Appositions

150

(e) Construct State

153

(!‫ )־‬Relative Clauses

157

(g) Varia

158

‫י‬

vu!

I Esdras c. Verbal Complements

158

1. Objects

158

2. Adverbs

160

d. Subjects and Predicates

161

e. Independent Components

163

f. Multiple Parts

163

g. Divine Names

164

h. Name Lists

165

i. Additional Phrases and Sentences

165

j . Double Readings

170

k. Additions and Omissions Generated by Other Changes

173

Conclusion

175

CHAPTER THREE: THE TRANSLATION

181

I. Translation Technique

183

a. Adequacy of Equivalents

185

1. Consistency in Choice of Equivalents

185

2. The Level of Semantic Parallelism between Equivalents

188

b. Changes in Morphemes

189

1. Waws

190

2. Singular / Plural

193

c. Changes in the Syntax of the Verb 1. The Voice

196 196

(a) Active / Passive

196

(b) Passive/Active

200

2. Parataxis - Hypotaxis

201

(a) Hypotactic Clauses / Paratactic Clauses

201

(b) Reformulation of Subordinate Clauses

205

I x

Contents (c) Participle / Noun

206

(d) Participle / Finite Verb

206

3. Other Changes in the Status of the Verb d. Word-Order 1. Changes of Word-Order by the Translator

207 208 209

(a) Particles

209

(b) Noun Phrases

210

(1) Noun + Demonstrative

210

(2) Noun + Adjective

210

(3) Construct State

211

(4) Other Possessive Compounds

213

(5) Appositions

214

(6) Numbers

215

(7) The Word to

216

(c) Nominal Clauses

216

(d) Relative Clauses

217

2. Changes of Doubtful Attribution (a) Nominal Phrases

219 219

(1) Silver and Gold / Gold and Silver

219

(2) The King X (title-name) / X the King (name-title)

221

(b) Verbal Clauses

223

(1) The Verb precedes the Subject

226

(2) The Verb Precedes the Object

227

(3) The Verb at the Beginning of the Sentence

228

(4) The Place of the Verbal Complements

229

3. Probable Change of Word-Order in the Vorlage e. Condensation and Expansion

231 233

1. Condensation

234

2. Expansion

237

I Esdras

x

I I . Double Translations

238

111 The Linguistic Milieu of I Esd

247

a. Sancta

249

b. Governmental Administration

255

c. The King

263

d. God

265

Conclusion

268

SUMMARY

2

ABBREVIATIONS

271

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

INDEX OF PASSAGES

295

6

9

FOREWORD

My acquaintance and fascination with the Book of I Esdras started years ago in a course held by my mentor in Biblical studies, the late Prof. I.L. Seeligmann. He then initiated and coached my dissertation on the book, which was approved at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1984, after his death. I am indebted to him for his insistence to pass on to his students his method and dedication to lucid philology. The Book of I Esdras has survived in Greek as one of the books of the Apocrypha.' The title '1 Esdras, or sometimes 'Apocryphal Esdras', distinguishes it from the other books named after Ezra, first and foremost the canonical book of Ezr-Neh, for which there is a continuous, consistent translation in the corpus of the L X X , known as 'Second (= II Esdras).

Esdras'

2

A special feature of I Esd is its intermediate position between canonical literature and the Apocrypha. A large part of the book (the seven chapters 1 Esd 1-2 and 5-9) parallels, with some changes, material to be found in 2 Chr 35-36, Ezr and Neh 8. The two chapters I Esd 3-4, however, are non-canonical: they tell the Story of Three Youths. The relationship between I Esd and Chr-Ezr-Neh is therefore somewhat similar to the relationship between the canonical books of Daniel and Esther, on the one hand, and their L X X versions, on the other. The Church, too, has not granted I Esd a definite .status; Jerome is largely responsible for this inferior position. See Pohlmann (1895); Denter (1962). •'‫' ׳‬First Esdras' is the title of the book in the main Greek tradition; Lucian calls it 'Second Esdras' (Ezr-Neh being 'First Esdras' in his canon), and the Latin tradition calls it 'Third Esdras' (after E z r = I Esdras, and Neh = II Esdras). Interestingly enough, M S S 46-52 call II Esd 'The Third Book of Chr'.

1 Esdras

xii

This volume deals with the formation of I Esd. The issue is approached from three different angles. First, the composition of the book is discussed, considering its make-up and structure in comparison with Chr-Ezr-Neh, in attempt to establish its raison d'etre. The second issue is anchored mainly in textual criticism, tracing in detail the Vorlage of I Esd in the chapters parallel to the M T in order to determine how the discrepancies between the texts emerged. Finally, we turn to the translator, analyzing his translation technique and philosophy and trying to outline the milieu in which he worked. This general threefold study of 1 Esd's formation is the result of a detailed text-critical commentary on the book to be published in a forthcoming volume. The texts mentioned in this volume in brief will be discussed at length in the commentary ad locum. I Esd is cited according to the GOttingen edition of the book prepared by R. Hanhart.'

J

I thank David Luvitsh, Ann Brenner and Marc Turnage for the English version of this volume.

CHAPTER ONE

THE COMPOSITION OF IESDRAS

Introduction: I Esdras' raison d'etre - the Story of the Youths

A comparison between I Esd and the parallel material in the canonical books of Chr-Ezr-Neh reveals the following main differences: 1. I Esd contains only the last two chapters of Chr (2 Chr 35-36 = I Esd 1), opening, therefore, with Josiah's celebration of the Passover. 2. The direct continuation of 2 Chr 36 in I Esd is Ezr 1.' 3. In I Esd the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes (Ezr 4:6-24 = I Esd 2:15-25) is inserted immediately after Cyrus' edict (Ezr 1 = 1 Esd 2:1-14), while the parallel to Ezr 2:1-4:5 is shifted to just after the Story of the Youths. 4. The Story of the Youths (I Esd 3:1-5:6) is the most unique feature of I Esd, having no parallel whatever in the canonical literature. 5. The direct continuation of Ezr 10 in 1 Esd is Neh 8. 6. There is no trace in I Esd of Neh 1-7 (except for the last verse of Neh 7). 7.1 Esd breaks off in the middle of Neh 8:13.

The following table shows the different arrangement of the material. The division into units is dictated by the comparison and may therefore be arbitrary in regard to extent and content.

So that the identical passages 2 Chr 36:22-23 and E z r I : I - 3 a are automatically merged.

4

I Esdras

The signs used in the table are: =

denotes parallel units in Chr-Ezr-Neh and I Esd. denotes units which appear in the parallel text but in a different place.

—

denotes units missing in the parallel text.

Chr-Ezr-Neh

I Esd

[A] 2 Chr 35-36 = From Josiah's Passover to the Destruction

[ A ] 1 Esd I

[B] Ezr 1 Edict of Cyrus

[B] 2:1-14 [D] 2:15-25 Letter of complaint [XJ 3:1-5:6 Story of the Youths

[C] 5:7-70 [C] Ezr 2:1-4:5 List of returnees, building of the altar, building of the Temple begun and interrupted fD] Ezr 4:6-24 Letter of complaint [E] Ezr 5:1-6:22 = [E] 6:1-7:15 Building of the Temple resumed and completed [F] Ezr 7:1-10:44 Ezra's arrival and activities

[ F ] 8:1-9:36

[G]Neh 1:1 -7:71(72) Nehemiah's memoirs [H] Neh7:72, 8:1-12(13) Reading of the Torah [I] Neh 8:13-13:31 Further activities of Nehemiah

[H] 9:37-55

Composition

5

I Esd differs, therefore, from the canonical books (i) in its outer limits, (ii) in the relationships among the books of Chr-Ezr-Neh, (hi) in the order of the chapters, and (iv) above all in the Story of the Youths. These topics have fired the imagination of scholars for many generations. This is not surprising, for I Esd offers what seems like simple solutions to some of the crucial problems relating to the composition of Chr-Ezr-Neh. Pohlmann's comprehensive study (1970) dealt with these problems starting with a survey of the relevant scholarship. He grouped the scholars who had treated these problems into two categories: 1) those favoring the Fragmenthypothese, and 2) protagonists of the Kompilationshypothese. The former consider I Esd a fragment of a larger work that included all of Chr-Ezr-Neh; they conclude, in addition, that I Esd preserves 2

part of an earlier redaction than that in the canonical books. The latter see I Esd as a compilation of different units, arguing that the author was acquainted with the canonical books and culled what he needed from them.' Pohlmann's survey provides a good picture of the history of scholarship in this area. Although, one would expect, on principle, to find views intermediate between the two extreme hypotheses and different conclusions regarding various problems. Indeed, Pohlmann himself proposed an eclectic view. In his opinion, I Esd is a fragment of a complete translation; however, while it is a reworked version of material identical in structure with Ezr 1-6, it testifies to a more original edition in which the books of Ezr and Neh were not combined.

' In this category' Pohlmann mentions (pp. 19-26) the views of Michaelis (1783). Trendelburg (1795), Dähne (1834), Treuenfcls (1950-51), A. A. Pohlmann (!859), Howorth (1893 1907), Marquart (1896), Torrey (1910). Hölscher (1923), Mowinekel (1964). Another comprehensive study worth mentioning, from the beginning of the century, is Theis (1910), and the article by Cross (1975) should also be included. ' Pohlmann (pp. 15-19) sums up the views of Bertholdt (1813), Bayer (1911), Walde (1913), Rudolph (1949). On p. 15 n. 6 he lists about a dozen more scholars of a similar opinion. We might add here the studies of Kaufmann (1956) and Grinz (1963), who define 1 Esd as 'a collection of narratives'.

I Esdras

6

Recently Dieter Bonier (1997) published a new study on I Esd, dealing mostly with two major issues: the sequence Ezr-Neh 8 and the location of the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes. In his view, I Esd, without the Story of the Youths, preserves the original edition of .the book, before a later redactor introduced Nehemiah's memoirs and ensuing changes. This redactor, living in the time of the Maccabees, added to the originally Tempie-Torah centered edition of I Esd the claim for political sovereignty characteristic of Ezr-Neh.

4

Hie present writer believes that I Esd is neither a 'fragment' surviving from a mostly lost book, nor, strictly speaking, a compilation of chosen units from the canonical books, but rather, a section deliberately cut out from Chr-Ezr-Neh, to form a framework for the Story of the Youths. I Esd never existed without the Story of the Youths. The latter, therefore, is the raison d'etre of the book.

I. Beginning and End of the Book

The outer limits of the current version of I Esd make it very difficult to see the book as a self-contained entity. It begins in the middle of Josiah's reign with his celebration of the Passover (in parallel to 2 Chr 35). Hie end of the book parallels Neh 8:13, breaking off not only in the middle of the events but quite literally in mid-sentence.

a. End of the Book

I prefer to begin with the end of the book, which as it were speaks for itself: the book quite clearly breaks off for purely technical reasons; it i

Since Bdhler's work became available to the present writer after this volume was completed, we mention his concepts on these issues in general in hope to answer his opposing views more properly in due time.

Composition

7

ends with the words k c u emaui‫׳‬f}x9r|o‫־‬av "then they assembled" - the beginning of a sentence which is left incomplete. It is inconceivable that the author would have deliberately ended the book in this way, and it is pointless to try to reconstruct the exceptional circumstances that might s

have unexpectedly interrupted his work. Much more plausibly, the book was damaged at some point in time and the end is lost. It seems self-evident that the truncated work was the specific version surviving in I Esd, in which the reading of the Torah (Neh 8) follows the divorce of the 'foreign women' (Ezr 10)." Moreover, the damage most probably took place in the Greek translation, as the translator of I Esd would probably not have perpetuated a defective ending in the original work.

7

‫י‬

‫ ־‬Some scholars have argued notwithstanding that this is indeed the original end of the book; see Cook (1913), pp. I -2, though the examples he cites of similar endings arc entirely irrelevant, as the verb in our ease does not flow from the previous text but begins something new. Van der Kooij's suggestion (1990) is likewise unconvincing: K0i e TTt
I E s d also possessed its distinctive details, as well, when it was broken off: Neh 8:13 opens with the words ...‫" וביום השני נאספו‬on the second day... gathered". In I Esd, on the other hand, the text breaks off after the words Km t‫זז‬101‫ץןויוו‬8‫ז>ןו‬0‫׳•ו‬.

We

may assume that the text parallel to ‫ ביום השני‬followed immediately. In other words, the verb and its modifier changed places. It is a typical feature of I Esd, in contrast to the M T , that the verb is brought forward before other parts of the sentence (see pp. 22310. We cannot determine whether the changed word-order was the work of the translator or already present in the translator's source; even so, the M T is superior because the point of interest here is the day, not the gadiering: ci'. vv. 1 2 : ‫ויאספו כ ל‬ ‫ ביום א ח ד לחדש השביעי‬...‫" העם‬And all the people gathered... on the first day of the seventh month..."; and cf. Neh 8:18-9:1. ' See the completions in Lucian's version and in some MSS of the Latin translation of I Esd.

8

I Esdras The content of the lost part of the book is another question. As our

text includes the first part of Neh 8:13, the sequel most probably included the celebration of the feast of Booths (vv. 13-18). Josephus, who obviously 8

made use of 1 Esd here, goes on after the reading of the Torah to describe 9

the whole celebration of the feast of Booths. Nevertheless, his testimony should be treated with some caution, for Josephus frequently 'tied loose 10

ends together' as he saw fit. Moreover, though he surely used I Esd and not the canonical Ezr (or a parallel Greek version), he went back to the canon for the story of Nehemiah (but severed it, in contrast to the canonical 11

books, from the story of Ezra). At any rate, one cannot conclude from Josephus' version that I Esd, too, went on to give an account of the celebration of the feast of Booths after describing the reading of the Torah 12

and, presumably, the rest of Nehemiah's activities. Later I shall suggest 1

See Pohlmann (1970), pp. 74ff. He is right in his conclusion (p. 113) that Josephus relics on I Esd in respect of content, sequence of events and even certain points of linguistic usage; but one should still not discount the logical possibility that the canonical books, too, were at his disposal and that he indeed used them on occasion. And see the criticism of In der Smitten (1971). pp. 381-382; Williamson (1977), pp. 22-24.

,

.Ant. X I 157. 1 0

Thus, for example, he describes the deaths, at a ripe old age. of both Ezra (ibid.

s i

He follows Neh 1; 1-7:4; it would seem that he was familiar with Neh 9-13. but he

§157) and Nehemiah (ibid. §158).

only hints at this material, and even then very briefly; see Williamson (1977). p. 25. Treuenfels (1850), pp. 774-777. asserted, on the basis of Josephus. that I E s d also included Nehemiah's memoirs. 1 2

It is worth mention that, in contrast to Neh 8:9, the parallel passage in I Esd 9:49 ,

docs not identify the governor' ( w w i i m ) as Nehemiah. perhaps indicating that the author of I Esd wished to ignore Nehemiah. Nevertheless, the omission may result from a different reason: even if Nehemiah's memoirs were available to the editor, he would presumably have been wary of mentioning him here, before the proper time. Moreover, perhaps I Esd testifies to the original text, in which the governor was anonymous, as in Ezr 2:63. Surprisingly, the name Nehemiah is added in the latter's parallel in I Esd 5:40. This addition must be secondary since Nehemiah is entierly out of place in this context which deals with the return in the days of Darius.

Composition

9

that the author of I Esd indeed suppressed the story of Nehemiah instead assigning a major role to Zerubbabel.

b. Beginning of the Book

The book begins, as it ends, abruptly, in the middle of Josiah's reign (in parallel to the beginning of 2 Chr 35), and one is again faced with the question: was the opening section of the book lost, and, i f so, how long was it? Here, however, in contrast to the end of the book, which breaks off in mid-sentence, the explanation of physical damage is not applicable; for the beginning relates, after all, to the beginning of a well-defined episode in Josiah's reign - his celebration of Passover.

1. Can it be Proved that I Esd is Part of a Complete Translation of ChrEzr-Neh? The arguments that I Esd did not originally begin with Josiah's Passover celebration are mainly indirect. For example: it is not plausible that the author would open with the words seal fyyaYev; it is not plausible that the author would begin his account in the middle of a king's reign, when he could have described the entire reign; the celebration of Passover does not seem to have a particular significance in the book's general design; and, generally speaking, the layout of the book as it is today does not seem to be based on a well-defined plan. It was therefore suggested that the book originally opened no later than the beginning of Josiah's reign, in parallel with 2 Chr 34, or that I Esd had originally contained the entire Book of Chr. The present book, then, would be a mere fragment of a rather large work.

11

Pohlmann (1970), pp. 32-33.

10

1 Esdras The only concrete proof that I Esd originally contained the whole

Book of Chr is the quotation of 2 Chr 2:11-13 by Eupolimos, a 2nd century Greek historian, as cited by Eusebius.

14

Torrey" argued that the

Greek of this quotation is similar to that of I Esd, implying that there once existed a complete translation of the Chronicler's work, of which 1 Esd is but a fragment. Does the passage by Eupolimos indeed testify to the original form of I Esd ? The parallel texts in 2 Chr 2:11-13, L X X and Eupolimos are as follows: 2 Chr 2:11-13 ‫ ח כ ם‬ρ ‫ברוך הי אלהי ישראל אשר עשה א ת השמים ו א ת הארץ אשר נתן לדויד המלך‬ ‫ ועתה שלחתי איש ח כ ם יודע בינה ל ח ו ר ס א ב י בן אשה מן בנות דן‬...‫יודע שכל ובינה‬ ...‫ואביו איש צרי‬ Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who made heaven and earth, who has given King David a wise son, endued with discretion and understanding... Now I have sent a skilled man, endued with understanding, Huram-abi, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre. LXX 11 Εύλογητ(>5 κύριοι ό Oto; ' Ισραήλ 'ός ί π υ ί η σ ί ν τόμ ούρανόν και τ η ν γήι‫ ׳‬os ί δ ω κ ε ν τω Δ α υ ί δ τω βασιλί'ι ιΑόν σ ο φ ό ν και

‫־‬6ιστάμ6νοι‫׳‬

σ ύ ν ε σ ι ν και 6'πιστήμην... 12 και ν υ ν άττεσταλκά σοι άνόρα σοφόν κα'ι fitkVra auvctuv rbv

Χιμάμ τ ο ν •πατέρα

μου 13 ή μήτηρ αυτού α π ό

Ουγατί'ptiif Δ ά ν scat ό π α τ ή ρ αυτού άνήρ Τύριο5...

Eupolimos: Κ ύ λ ο γ η τ 6 3 ή θ€0? 05 τ ο ν ούρανον καΐ τ η ν γ ή ν Ι κ τ ι ι κ ί ' as «ϊ-λίτο 1

άνθρωποι χρηστόν 6κ χρηστού βνδρό5. « Λ αρχιτέκτονα σοι άιτάτταλκα άνθρωττον Γύριον Ικ μ η τ ρ ό ς Ιουδαίας- έκ της φυλίγς Δαβίδ...

Examination of the two Greek texts indeed reveals a considerable difference between the wording of the L X X and that of the quotation in 14

1,

Praepar, evangelica I X 34:1-2; see Hoiladay (1983), p, 122.

T o r r e y (1910), p. 82.

11

Composition

Eupolimos' work. Is this difference indeed due to Eupolimos' use of a different translation, such as that of 1 Esd? The only evidence of the connection between I Esd and the language of the quotation is the equivalent of the verb ‫עשה‬, "to make', in the phrase 'who made heaven and earth'. In the L X X , as usual, ‫ עשה‬is rendered by

TTOLCIV,

whereas Eupolimos uses

the verb κτί£6ιν‫׳‬. The translator of I Esd uses the same verb in the same phrase in 6:12 (Ezr 5:11) ήμεΐς 6σμ‫׳‬£1 παίδες του κυρίου του κτίσαντος 1

τόι‫ ׳‬ούρανόν και τήν γήΐ'. * Nevertheless, this 'proof is easily refuted. Linguistically speaking, one expects a greater similarity between the flowing language of I Esd and the living Greek of the historians. Moreover, it is difficult to trace the vestigial modes of expression of the anonymous translator in a passage that has been entirely recast: after all, the original Greek translation was transmitted first by Eupolimos, and later also by Eusebius. The distance in language and content between the biblical text and its parallel as cited by the historians is so considerable as to be 17

unattributable to the translator - not even to the translator of I Esd. There are no characteristic discrepancies of this order between the text of 1 Esd and the parallels in Chr-Ezr-Neh. In sum, despite the temptation, one cannot see the passage in Eupolimos-Eusebius as a quotation from a translation, a fragment of which has survived in I Esd. A further remark: if such a comprehensive translation existed, Josephus made no use of it. And i f there had been such a translation, one would '‫ יי‬The parallel M T does not read the verb: ‫" אנחנא המו עבדוהי די אלה שמיא וארעא‬we are the. servants of the God of heaven and earth", but one may assume that the translator's Vorlage read ‫עבד‬, the Aramaic equivalent of ‫עשה‬. " Thus, os tiXcTo άνθρωποι.· χρηστό!.· 4κ χρηστού riv6pos conveys only the general idea of ‫אשר נתן לדויד המלך בן ח כ ם יודע שכל ובינה‬. Farther on in the Eusebius-Eupolimos version Solomon conducts a correspondence, similar to that with the king of Tyre, with the king of Egypt, without any basis in the biblical text. And there are many more such expansions, abbreviations and changes, which hardly return to a variant text or translation.

12

1 Esdras

have expected him to use it, in view of his adherence to I Esd in his account of the Restoration. That he did not use a translation related to 1 Esd for the whole Book of Chr we learn from his account of the last kings of Judah, from Josiah's Passover and on - a period documented in 1 Esd. Josephus bases his history here not only on the Book of Kings but 8

also on Chr, but not the version preserved in 1 Esd.' He has recourse to I Esd only for the period of the Restoration; he probably knew the book as one devoted mainly to that period. It is most unlikely that he would have proceeded in this way if he had at his disposal a comprehensive, continuous work covering the whole period of Chr-Ezr-Neh." Finally, one can perhaps draw conclusions from Josephus as to Eupoiimos' procedure: Josephus, too, like Eupolimos, did not use an unknown translation of Chr, despite his constant use of independent language and content. It is unlikely that three translations of Chr existed, and even the existence of two translations to a large-scale work like Chr, is rather 20

improbable. I f the L X X versions of Chr and Ezr-Neh were very late translations, it might be justified to suggest the existence of an older Greek translation, part of which has come down to us in I Esd, but this thesis is no longer commonly held, and especially not in relation to LXX-Chr, which is what concerns us at this moment.

21

There is, therefore, no real evidence that the translation surviving in I Esd was ever part of a translation of the whole of Chr. " Thus, he relics for Josiah's Passover and his encounter with Pharaoh Neco not on the very brief version of the Book of Kings but on Chr, but not in the typical guise of I Esd. For example, Josephus writes (Ant. X , § 7 6 ) that Josiah did not heed Neco's warning, as in 2 Chr 35:22, both M T and L X X ; while I Esd slates (1:26) that he did not heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah. A further example: Josephus relates (ibid. §77) that the king was wounded on the battlefield, as in 2 Chr 35:23, while I Esd says nothing of the king's being struck by warriors (1:27). ‫־‬

"' Neither would one have expected him to insert various events, taken mainly from the books of Jeremiah and Daniel, between the periods of the monarchy and the Restoration. 20

21

Williamson (1977), pp. 14-16. Allen (1974), I , pp. 6-17.

Composition

13

2. Is there any Evidence that I Esd Originally Began with Josiah's Passover? Besides the question of a complete translation of Chr-Ezr-Neh in the version preserved in I Esd, scholars have debated whether the lost material at the beginning of the book included just one episode - the first chapter of Josiah's reign (2 Chr 34). Had I Esd indeed opened in parallel to 2 Chr 34, at the inception of Josiah's reign, no-one would have doubted that this was the original intention of the author. It is rather difficult to draw any conclusions from the details of the text as to the work as a whole; some details seem to embody references to the opening chapter of Josiah's reign (2 Chr 34), while others seem deliberately to ignore it. On the one hand, the final verse of Josiah's reign, 1:31 (2 Chr 35:26), being as it is part of the concluding formula, sums up the entire reign and not just part of it. That in itself does not necessarily imply that I Esd originally covered the whole reign. Nevertheless, it is striking that I Esd's version of the verse reveals ties with 2 Chr 34 which are not in the M T . As against the MT: ‫" ויתר דברי יאשיהו וחסדיו ככתוב בתורת הי‬Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and his good deeds according to what is written in the law of the Lord", I Esd reads: και τ η ς συνέσεως αύτοΰ έν τω νόμω κυρίου, possibly for ‫" ובינתו בתורת הי‬and his understanding of the law of the Lord". This reading seems to refer more specifically to the reading of the 'Book of the Law' that had been found during Josiah's reign, and the reforms that he instituted on that basis (2 Chr 34), and, therefore, it may well be the original text. In I Esd, which does not relate the specific event of the finding of the scroll, the expression may have been interpreted as a general reference to Josiah's piety. n

22

It is doubtful whether the translation of yet another verso, distinguishes those of Josiah's activities recounted in I Esd from those that are not. As against 2 Chr 35:27 ‫" דבריו הראשנים ו ה א ח ר נ י ם‬his acts, first and last", we read in I Esd 1:31 τά T S προπραχθί UTO («τ' αύτοΰ και τά vw. If we understand the Greek as translated by Cook (1913): "and the things that he had done before and the things recited now", it

14

I Esdras On the other hand, another passage in the text lends credence to the

hypothesis that the author's awareness of the extent of his book agrees with its present opening. As against 2 Chr 35:20 ‫אחרי כל ז א ת אשר הכין‬ ‫" יאשיהו את הבית‬After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple", the parallel passage in I Esd 1:23 reads: Kai μ ε τ ά πάσαν τ η ν πράξιν ταύτηνΊωσίου, note, there is no direct reference to the Temple (the words ‫ א ת הבית‬are not rendered). In other words, in contrast to the MT, which explicitly refers to Josiah's activities in the Temple as described in 2 Chr 34, the summary in I Esd is concerned with Josiah's activities in general, 2J

as the apocryphal book contains no parallel to 2 Chr 34. I f it could be argued that this change was deliberate, it might constitute an indication of the original form of the book; however, the circumstances in which the 24

verse in question received its present form are unknown. The verse stands at a transitional point in the book, and, therefore, may have been subject to alteration; thus, the LXX-Chr omits these connecting words would follow that the translator distinguished Josiah's first actions, not referred to in the book he was translating, and those told here and now. However, the verb 'recited' is superimposed on the Greek text but not actually in it: π ρ ο π ρ α χ θ έ ν τ α refers to things that are being done, not recited or written (v&v is the opposite of προ..., and the complete opposition is: τ ά προιτραχθίντα ύπ' αύτοϋ # τά νυν πραχβέντα

ίπτ'

αύτοϋ). Τ ο νΰΐ' is a legitimate, though unusual, equivalent 10 • ‫ א ח ר ו נ י‬last' (cf. the phrase ‫' דורות אחרונים‬the present generations' in Qumran and Rabbinical Hebrew). It is worth noting, with due caution, that the specific translation adopted here for the final formula (and for its other occurrences in the sequel) supports the thesis that there was at the time no complete translation to Chr; if the translator had already dealt with this formula innumerably many times, throughout Chr, he would hardly have varied his rendering several limes toward the end of the book; see 1:32-33 (2 Chr 36:1-3). r

' Talshir (1984), pp. 13-14; van der Kooij (1991*)• P• 250.

1 4

The omission of the words ‫ א ת הבית‬may be simply a slip of the pen. Alternatively, the translator may have been responsible: after beginning to translate as he did, with a noun replacing the verbal combination, the direct object was left hanging and he simply omitted it.

Composition

15

altogether, after previously adding material culled from the parallel passage in the Book of Kings (see below). 1 Esd, too, has an additional passage at this point (1:21-22, unparalleled anywhere). Possibly, therefore, the different wording of the text, which does not confine Josiah's activities to the Temple, is due to the added material, which constitutes a general summary of Josiah's activities. The current text, then, seems to convey contradictory implications for the question of whether the present start of the book is accidental or deliberate. The author did not leave us a clue to this perennial problem.

3. The Evidence of I Esd 1:21-22 The two verses added in I Esd 1:21-22, warmly praising Josiah, perhaps, hint at one thing quite clearly: our author indeed chose to begin his book with Josiah. After the parallel to 2 Chr 35:19 one reads the following added text: 21 και ώρθώβη τά Ι ρ γ α Ί ω σ ί ο υ ενώπιον το» κυρίου α ν τ ο υ ι-ν καρδία πλήρει e O o ‫ ־‬€ f k t a s 2 2.‫־‬και τα κ α τ ' α υ τ ό ν Si avnyi γ ρ α π τ ά ι iv τ ο ι ς έ μ π ρ ο σ θ ε ν χ ρ ό ν ο ς , we pi τών ήμαρτηκότων καΐ ήσεβηκότων e t j τον κύριοι• παρά π ά ν Ιβνος

και β α σ ι λ ί ί α ν , και ά « λ ύ π η σ α ν α υ τ ό ν

έν

αίσθήσιι, και ο'ι λόγοι του κυρίου α ν ά σ τ η σ α ν έττί Ι σ ρ α ή λ . And the deeds of Jostah were upright in the sight of his Lord, for his heart was full of godliness. The events of his reign have been recorded in the past concerning those who sinned and acted wickedly toward the Lord beyond any other people or kingdom, and how they grieved the Lord deeply, so that the words of the Lord rose up [were fulfilled] against Israel.

Now, as we have already stated, the L X X , too, like 1 Esd, adds material after 2 Chr 35:19. Except for the position in the text, there is no 2

connection between the two additions. '' The added text in the L X X is a :

‫ ־‬Thus Nestle, p. 27, arguing against the view (current in his day) that I Esd is a reworking of the L X X ; similarly Hanhart (1974*), p. 13.

16

I Esdras

translation of a text borrowed from 2 Kgs 23:24-27. The translator does not copy the L X X to that passage {at least, not the currently extant version of the L X X ) ; he translates from a Hebrew text, probably from a version of Chr in which the addition was already present. This expanded version is probably secondary, as the theodicy expressed in it - clearly representative of the doctrine of cumulative punishment typical of the Book of Kings - is at variance with the spirit of the Chronicler, who consistently favors 2

immediate, inflexible punishment. * At any rate, this text cannot possibly be considered as a source for I Esd, even if one assumes that the translator has produced a very free, paraphrastic version. Like the addition in the L X X , the added verses in I Esd are also a late addition - and again, not by the translator. Underlying the Greek text is a Hebrew source. This is evident in regard to almost every constituent, from a routine phrase like ενώπιον του κυρίου to an idiomatic expression such as και οί λόγοι του κυρίου άνεστησαν έιή 'Ισραήλ. We suggest that it goes back to a text such as the following conjectured Vorlage: ‫ ודבריו ה נ ם כ ת ו ב י ם על הימים‬.‫ותכון מ ל א כ ת יאשיהו לפני אלהיו בלבב ש ל ם וביראה‬ ‫הראשונים על ה ח ו ט א י ם והפושעים בה׳ מ כ ל גוי ו מ מ ל כ ה ואשר ה כ ע י ס ו ה ו בדעת‬ .‫ברעתם( ודברי ה׳ ק מ ו על ישראל‬/) 27

But this source was not part of the original text of Chr. Its style is quite distinctive, and its message, however one interprets the addition, does not fit well into the. frame of Chr. Unfortunately, the meaning of the added verses in I Esd is far from clear. Some scholars have understood the references to 'sinners' as applying to Josiah as well. Since this clashes with the 'righteous king' conception of I Esd, they are forced to explain the passage as an addition to the Bickermann (1962). pp. 24-27. 1 7

Torrey (1910), p. 88, sees this passage as an original fragment of Chr, intended to replace the similarly positioned passage of Kings and to provide its own explanation as to why Josiah's actions did not alter the national fate; the text, he argues, is defective and its meaning was therefore obscured.

17

Composition 28

original I Esd. But the real meaning seems to be different. The verses make a distinction between the righteous king and the sinners. The first verse refers to Josiah, saying that he acted reverently and wholeheartedly (v. 21). The second verse, however, refers to those who sinned against the Lord. This part is difficult to explain: what actions are being condemned? what are the 'early [lit.: first] days' in which these actions took place? who are the sinners against the Lord? and, finally, what were the words or things that "were fulfilled concerning Israel"? The text offers no explicit answers. The most attractive solution, 29

proposed repeatedly over many decades of scholarship, is that the passage is referring to 2 Kgs 23:15-18 (not echoed in 2Chr 34), It closes the circle begun in the prophecy of the man of God concerning Josiah's destruction of the altar that Jeroboam built at Bethel: ‫הנה בן נולד לבית דוד יאשיהו שמו‬ ‫" וזבח עליך א ת כהני הבמות המקטירים עליך ועצמות אדם ישרפו עליך‬Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name: and he shall sacrifice upon you the priests of the high places who burn incense upon you, and men's bones shall be burned upon you" (1 Kgs 13:1-3). While the Chronicler omitted any reference to this prophecy, the author of I Esd returned to it. Like the author of Kings, he considered it a mark in Josiah's favor that his actions had been foreseen in those 'early days', and the prophecy had indeed been "fulfilled concerning Israel" in his time. The meaning of the passage would then be as follows: Josiah's actions were foretold long ago, in the early days, in the book that told the history of the sinners against the Lord (the sins of Jeroboam); and God's words had indeed come true in Josiah's day. I believe this is still the most plausible interpretation of the passage. ‫מ‬

Wattle (1913). pp. 88-89, Myers, too, persists in the view that the original passage was omitted because it lumped Josiah together with the evil kings; Myers (1974). p. 28.

3

Frilsche (1851), p. 16; Torrey (1945), p. 405; Rudolph (1955). p. 331; Hanhart (1974*), p. 13.

1 Esdras

18

Van der Kooij reexamined the problem proposing a different solution for the many difficulties raised by this passage; his solution, moreover, led 0

him to a certain theory concerning the beginning of the book.' To his mind, the text intends to distinguish between Josiah, the righteous king, and his subjects, sinners and evildoers who grieve Josiah by their actions. I Esd 1:22 is based on 2 Kgs 22 and on its parallel in 2 Chr 34. However, the account of Josiah'$ reform in those chapters does not accord with the verdict delivered by the author of 1 Esd on the sinning people, since the people, too, take part in the reforms (see, especially, 2 Chr 34:33). Here, then, argues van der Kooij, is the reason that the author of I Esd did not include 2 Chr 34 in his work. Although van der Kooij's distinction between Josiah and the people 31

is logical and well rooted in later traditions, his solution ignores the time 32

definition: "the early days". These words belie his explanation that the text is referring to the misdeeds of Josiah's own subjects, or even the time of his father Manasseh. As to the general conclusion about the book's beginning, i f vv. 21-22 are indeed referring to the sins of the people in Josiah's time, hence implying an ideology different from that of 2 Chr 34, and especially v. 33, the author could have omitted this last verse, just as he added vv. 21-22. This is not a sufficient reason for such a far-reaching literary decision as excluding 2 Chr 34 and beginning the book in the middle of Josiah's reign. ,

,

' V a n der Kooij (1991*).

31

He specifically cites Ben Sira, but the same is true of the Talmudic sages: see below.

3 2

The text speaks of 'early/first days' and not of 'first books', as van der Kooij intimates in an effort to circumvent the problem: "Der Text von 1 Esr 1, 22 nimmt Bezug auf ein bestimmte Passage in den 'früheren' Büchern der Könige und der Chronik" (p. 246). There are no grounds for the assumption that the author of I Esd considered his work as a new book based on early books.

Composition

19

In our view, the added verses do not constitute proof that I Esd originally began as it does today, with Josiah's celebration of Passover; but they may support the thesis that the book did begin, and deliberately so, with Josiah. If the book did indeed open with Josiah's celebration of Passover, this was most probably the result of a largely redactional decision, the redactor being primarily interested in the sequel and less in the starting point. A similar device was adopted by another redactor whose work has reached us, namely, the Chronicler. Indeed, the Chronicler opens the narrative-part of his book with the last chapter of Saul's reign (the battle on N40unt Gilboa, 1 Sam 31 = 1 Chr 10)." Perhaps this was not an uncommon device among authors of those times. Of all the differences between our text and its parallel in the MT, the addition in I Esd 1:21-22 is the most salient in both length and content, except for the major departures due to the inclusion of the Story of the Three Youths and the structure of the book. The particular reference to Josiah's reign must indicate the author's special attitude to that king.'

4

Indeed, the author of I Esd, in his special attitude to Josiah, is adding his voice to a persistent trend, stressing Josiah's outstanding qualities. Josiah enjoyed a unique status among the kings of Judah and Israel, both in biblical and later literature. The Book of Kings highlights his position by the prophecy to Jeroboam (1 Kgs 13), already mentioned above, which arouses expectations for his reign and his activities. Furthermore, we read in 2 Kgs 23:25 that ‫וכמהו לא‬ " I first learned of this comparison from Prof. S. Talmon. M

The author of the current text of I Esd may, indeed, have done Josiah a last kindness in his treatment of that king's tragic end. Josiah's death is described in three different ways: in the Book of Kings he dies at Megiddo and his slaves carry his corpse to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:29-30); in C h r he is wounded at Megiddo and brought to Jerusalem, where he dies (2 Chr 35:23-24); but in I Esd he only weakens on the battlefield, whereupon he returns to Jerusalem and dies in his bed, 1:27-29; see Talshir(I996).

I Esdras

20

‫ ואחריו לא ק ם כמהו‬...‫" היה לפניו מ ל ן אשר שב אל הי‬Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord...; nor did any like him arise after him". Ben Sira, too, lauds him: .‫שם יאשיהו כקטרת ס מ י ם הממלח מעשה רוקח‬ ‫ כי נחל על משובתינו וישבת תועבות‬.‫בחך כדבש ימתיק זכרו ובמזמור על משתה היין‬ ...‫ ויתם אל אל לבו ובימי ח מ ס עשה חסד‬.‫" הבל‬The memory of Josiah is like a blending of incense prepared by the art of the perfumer. It is sweet as honey to every mouth, and like music at a banquet of wine. He was led aright in converting the people, and took away the abominations of iniquity. He set his heart upon the Lord; in the days of wicked men he strengthened godliness" (Sirach 49:1-4). The Sages of the Talmud uphold Josiah's honor," and warn against 56

ascribing any misdeed to him. The Sages also considered the question of why Josiah's good deeds were not taken into account in determining the fate of the nation as a whole; their answer was to distinguish between the king and his subjects; Josiah had indeed repented sincerely and completely, but his contemporaries continued to support idolatry, which they successfully concealed from him," ‫" והוא אינו יודע שאין דורו דומה יפה‬and he did not realize, however, that his generation did not appear good enough (in the eyes of G o d ) " " 1 5

w

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhednn 104a. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 56b: ‫ •ויעש‬:‫כ ל ה א ו מ ר יאשיהו ח ט א אינו א ל א טועה שנאמר‬ ‫ שכל דין שדן מבן‬,‫ א ל א מ ה אני מקיים ׳וכמהו ל א היה לפניו מלך אשר שבי וגוי‬.‫׳‬...‫הישר בעיני הי‬ ‫ אין לך גדול בבעלי ת ש ו ב ה יותר‬:‫ דאמר רב‬,‫ ופליגא דרב‬...‫שמנה עד שמנה עשרה החזירן להן‬ ‫" מיאשיהו בדורו‬Whosoever says, Josiah sinned! - is surely in error, for Scripture slates, 'And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord...' [2 Kgs 22:2]. But then how can one fulfill the words of Scripture, 'Before him there was no king like him, who turned etc.".' - Any judgment that he had delivered between the ages of eight and eighteen, he returned it to the litigants [i.e., he returned whatever property had changed hands as a result of his judgment, for fear that he had misjudged the case(... This is contrary to the statement of Rav. who said: There is no greater penitent than Josiah in his generation".

" E c h a R a b b a , Pisqa 1. %

' Babylonian Talmud, Ta'anit 22b.

Composition

21

There can be no other meaning for the beginning of the book - i f the 39

beginning it indeed is - but the wish to start with Josiah. Other explanations that have been suggested in attempts to propose a plan for the book are less than plausible. This is particularly true with regard to generalities, such as the explanation that the book was an anthology of stories from the end of the First Temple period and the beginning of the Second Temple period which opened with the feast of Passover and closed with the feast of Booths." Neither can we agree with the commonly held view that 1 Esd intended to describe die history of the temple from its last Golden Age 41

until the reestablishment of the cult. Indeed, i f that were the case, surely the very relevant chapter of Josiah's reign that relates to the Temple 2 Chr 34 - would have been included! The whole plan of the book would have benefited had it opened with Josiah's accession to the throne and gone on to describe the discovery of the scroll of the Law and the reading of the Law, echoed finally by the reading of the Law in Ezra's time. However, as the book stands before us today, all we can say is that the author had at his disposal a comprehensive work that included Chr-Ezr-Neh in their canonical versions but strung together. The author of I Esd was moved to intervene by his desire to include the story of the three youths. This did not necessitate copying the whole work anew. All he had to do was to begin at some specific point, and he probably chose Josiah in view of the latter's special status.

II. Continuity of Chr-Ezr and Ezr-Nch Hie transition between Chr-Ezr-Neh is treated differently in I Esd than in the canonical books. In the latter, Chr and Ezr-Neh are completely ,

" Rudolph (1949). p. X I V . Thus Kaufrnann (1956), thereby stressing his contempt for I Esd as a literary work ,

or, in his words, literary miscarriage'. J !

This has long been a popular thesis', sec Bertholdt (1813), p. 1011; Schurer (1986), pp. 708-717.

22

I Esdras

separate; only the repetition of the first words of Ezr at the end of Chr ties them together to create a single complex. In I Esd. however, Ezr 1 ff. follows 2 Chr 36 without any break. As to Ezr and Neh, in I Esd the passage parallel to Neh 8 is the direct continuation of the material parallel to Ezr 10. There is no trace of Nehemiah's memoirs (Neh 1 -7; 9-13) in the apocryphal book.

a. Connection between Chr and Ezr-Neh The problem of the relationship between the Books of Chr and Ezr-Neh 42

has been discussed untiringly i n the scholarly literature. The field was

It is incomprehensible to me why, even today, scholars familiar with the Hebrew language and with Talmudie literature continually hark back to the barayta in the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Batra 15-16) in connection with the composition of the anonymous books of the Bible, in general, or the relationship between Ezr-Neh and Chr, in particular. This is the case even in Japhet (1991), p. 1. The barayta is indeed concerned with the 'writing' of the books of the Bible, but there is no doubt that the sense of the root ‫ כ ת ב‬there has nothing whatever to do with the composition of the books; the connotation of ‫ כ ת ב‬there is the committing of !he books to writing as part of the canon (for a good example of this usage of the verb in the Babylonian Talmud see Yoma 29a, where the question discussed is whether the Book of Esther may or may not be written down). Among other things, the text in Bava Batra states that King Hezekiah and his companions (based on Prov 25:1) 'wrote' Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes; or that the men of the Great Assembly (referring to Neh 10) 'wrote' Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and Esther. Surely no Rabbinical authority could have attributed the composition of these books to Hezekiah etc. The meaning is: they committed the books to writing m their authoritative versions. Neither is it clear why any doubts are expressed concerning the statement of the barayta in regard to our books: ‫" עזרא כ ת ב ס פ ר ו ו י ח ס דברי ה י מ י ס עד לו‬Ezra wrote his book and the genealogies of Chronicles up to himself. This by no means implies that ancient tradition attributed the 'composition' of Chr to Ezra. Moreover, the text undoubtedly means that Ezra committed his book and the entire book of Chr to writing, for otherwise the barayta would not have solved the problem of who 'wrote' Chr - and it systematically lists all the books of the Bible, one by one, proposing a solution to the problem for each: it is inconceivable that Chr should be the only exception; see D. Talshir (1988*).

Composition

23

long dominated by the school founded by Zunz (1832), which considered these books as a single entity, the work of one author; even today this view is held by several important authorities, such as Mosis (1973), Willi (1972) and others. The contrary view, following Segal (1943), is that of the school whose chief contemporary representatives are Japhet (1968 and later) and Williamson (1977), who have tried to challenge the unanimity of previous studies by citing various linguistic, literary and ideational distinctions between these books. Their tone is decisive in the extreme, as if implying that all doubts on this question have been dispelled and there 43

is nothing further to say. I maintain, however, that their arguments do not categorically prove that the 'books' were indeed composed by different writers or, a fortiori, thai they were not created in the same school.

44

The linguistic discussion is currently deadlocked. On the one hand, no conclusive linguistic proofs have been adduced that one author was responsible for both works, even though the common elements are quite impressive, particularly when exclusive to both; on the other hand, the arguments in favor of linguistic differentiation cannot withstand criticism.

45

From the literary point of view, the differentiating arguments are very weak; thus, for example, it has been argued that the author of Chr consistently describes the death of each king, while the deaths of Zerabbabel,

4 ,

A good, though somewhat biased, summary, of the subject and the relevant bibliography is Japhet (1991).

4 4

Japhet (1991), pp. 312-313: "...in terms of a theological 'school' the Book of Chronicles and the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah are not related... Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles were written by different authors, at separate - though proximate periods in the Persian-Hellenistic period, and express varying theologies and objectives". '["he linguistic arguments were presented by Japhet (1968); Williamson (1977). pp. 37-59. Some of the 'proofs' have been challenged by D. Talshir (1988), specifically criticizing the validity of some of the arguments and the method adopted to prove on linguistic grounds that two different writers were concerned. For a summary see Japhet (1991), pp. 302-304.

24

IEsdras

Ezra and Nehenruah are shrouded in mystery. But this opposition of literary techniques is undermined i f one notes that the Chronicler, in his account of the kingdom of Judah, faithfully follows the Books of Kings; the 'technique' here is not the Chronicler's, and consequently he does not 46

abandon it when he comes to deal with the later leaders. He is simply bound by the constraints of his sources. Finally, from the standpoint of the author's world of ideas,

47

the

strongest argument is the failure of Ezr-Neh to refer to Zerubbabel's Davidic lineage, while glorification of the Davidic line is a paramount motif of Chr. We cannot be sure as to the background for this omission. At any rate, the Chronicler lived at a time when Zerubbabel was no more than a transitory episode, no more than the leader of the returnees at a certain point in time. He did not fulfill the hopes of national resurgence; rather, he disappeared from the historical stage like other governors. Another argument points to the different conception of the Chronicler who takes great pains to preserve the unity of 'all Israel', as against the author of Ezr-Neh who is concerned with Judah and Benjamin alone. In Ezr-Neh, it was reality that overcame Utopia; but at a time of national exultation the notion 'all Israel' comes to life in that book too. Thus, in the Aramaic summary of the dedication of the Temple, we read, ‫והקרבו‬ ‫ על כל ישראל תרי עשר לממן שבטי ישראל‬...‫" לחנכת בית אלהא תה‬They offered at the dedication of this house of God... for all Israel..., according to the number of the tribes of Israel" (Ezr 6:17). Similarly, on the occasion of Ezra's return: ‫הבאים מהשבי בני הגולה הקריבו עלות לאלהי ישראל פרים שנים עשר‬ ‫ " על כל ישראל‬A t that time those who had come from captivity, the returned exiles, offered burnt offerings to the God of Israel: twelve bulls for all Israel" (Ezr 8:35). 'AH (of) Israel', ‫כל ישראל‬, recurs elsewhere as a *‫ י׳‬Japhet (1991), pp. 306-308. 4 7

See Williamson (1977), pp. 60-70, also (1987), contra Haran (1986); Japhet. (1991), pp. 304-306.

Composition

25

designation for the population concerned (Ezr 2:70 = Neh 7:72; Ezr 8:25; 10:5; Neh 12:47). Moreover, the term 'sons/people of Israel', ‫בני ישראל‬, is used quite frequently (more than ten times in different contexts, e.g., Ezr 3:1, 6:21, 7:7). In sum, in Ezr-Neh the political term 'Judah and Benjamin' is used alongside, and not in opposition to, the concept of 'all Israel'. In general, one must allow for the inherent difference between Chr, which is an account of the distant past, and Ezr-Neh, whose attention is 4

concentrated on times leading up to the present. " When writing about the kingdom of Judah, the author is not subject to the same dictates as he is when treating the satrapy of Judah. which was then under Persian rule. Little wonder, then, that the story of the kingdom of Judah is marked by the glory of its kings of old securely on their thrones, while Ezr-Neh offers little hope for a renewal of that independence. In addition, the amount of material at our disposal to characterize the author of Ezr-Neh is severely limited. Once the lists and Nehemiah's memoirs (Neh 1-7; 11-13), the Aramaic source in Ezr (most of chapters 4; 5-6; 7) and perhaps also the story of Ezra (particularly the part couched in first person, Ezr 7-10) are excluded, not much is left to create an impression of the author's language, literary style or spiritual world. Here, perhaps, is the main difference between Chr and Ezr-Neh. The bulk of Chr bears the mark of a single, individual author, although that author copies entire chapters from his sources. In Ezr-Neh, however, the balance of material between the author and his sources is different, and the author has left much less of his personal imprint. The author is responsible for the historical construction: it was he who created - not too successfully the composite picture of the Restoration during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, as well as the combined treatment of the activities of Ezra and ** Just as Thucydides does not apply the same criteria in treating the history of the past and the present. Similarly, we do not consider Josephus equally reliable for antiquity and for his own times.

1 Esdras

26

Nehemiah. Only a few passages were written by the author himself, the most obvious being the description of the building of the altar and the foundation of the Temple (Ezr 3:1-4:5). His account of the role of the Levites, particularly the class of Temple singers instituted by David (3:8-11), 49

carries the mark of the Chronicler. One cannot ignore the close affinity between the author of this passage and the Chronicler, even i f the two were not identical. Even i f Ezr-Neh existed at some time as a separate work, someone made the effort to link it up with Chr. Just as someone created a continuous saga of Deuteronomistic historiography, despite the fact that the individual works it embodies differ considerably in their nature, conception and literary style, some redactor did the same for the Chronicler's work. The hand of that redactor is discernible in the inclusion of the list from Neh 11 in 1 Chr 9. He has no scruples about repeating the list of returnees of Neh 7 in Ezr 2 in order to portray the Restoration in Cyrus' reign; similarly, he uses the list of inhabitants of Jerusalem in Neh 9 to complete his ethnic50

geographical introduction. The redactor makes creative use of the lists to form historical constructs. That Chr-Ezr-Neh form a continuous whole is likely given the practice of compilers of historiographical books. It is no accident that differentiation between the individual books of Deuteronomistic historiography is so difficult. A book could have been written as a sequel to an existing work, or as a chapter on the events preceding an existing history. Otherwise, a redactor could have planned the beginning of a work to continue an existing work, or reshape the end of an existing book to create a transition to

See Talshir (1983). Compare, on a smaller scale, the use made of the list of David's officials, which appears twice as a kind of marker: first in 2 Sam 8:16-18, before the chapters of the Succession Narrative; and a second time after those chapters (20:23-26), before the incorporation of the Appendix (chapters 21-24).

Composition

27

another work. Admittedly, the repeated verses at the beginning of Ezr (l:l-3a), and at the end of Chr (2 Chr 36:22-23), are no proof that Chr and Ezr were originally a continuous work; however, the link is not created by those verses alone. Even without them it seems clear that the end of Chr was formulated with an eye to the sequel in Ezr: ‫ויגל השארית מן החרב אל‬ ‫ למלאות דבר ה׳ בפי ירמיהו עד רצתה‬.‫בבל ויהיו לו ולבניו לעבדים עד מלך מלכות פרס‬ ‫" הארץ את שבתותיה כל ימי השמה שבתה למלאות שבעים שנה‬He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. A l l the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years" (2 Chr 36:20-21). Like the author of the Books of Kings, who takes a step beyond the destruction to the improvement in the lot of Jehoiachin, our author, writing in the Persian period, leads the story to the threshold of the imminent Restoration, ‫" עד מ ל ן מלכות פרס‬until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia". Another motif common to the end of Chr and the beginning of Ezr is the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy: ‫" למלאות דבר הי בפי ירמיה‬to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah" (2 Chr 36:21) / ‫" לכלות דבר ה׳ בפי ירמיהו‬that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished" (Ezr 1:1). It is not only the conclusion in 2 Chr 36:21 that was formulated so as to be continued at the beginning of Ezr, for it closes an entire pericope which opened with Zedekiah's accession to the throne: ‫ויעש הרע בעיני ה׳ אלהיו לא‬ •‫" נכנע מלפני ירמיהו הנביא מפי ה‬He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord his God. He did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the Lord" (36:12). The smooth transition from Chr to Ezr is thus well anchored in the beginning of Zedekiah's reign with the motif of fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. In sum, there is a marked inner and outer link between Chr and Ezr-Neh.

28

I Esdras Neither can the evidence from I Esd be dismissed so summarily.

51

There is no visible reason to argue that the author of I Esd is responsible for the continuity of Chr-Ezr-Neh; more likely, it was part of his tradition. The thesis that I Esd is, as it were, an anthology, as though the author took one book (Chr) and picked from there two chapters as the prelude to his own work, then turned to a completely different book (Ezr-Neh) which he then reworked as a sequel, is untenable. Rather, I Esd is a continuous segment lifted from a given, continuous work that progressed from the history of the kingdom of Judah, as described in Chr, to its reconstitution under the Persians. The author's prime goal was to integrate the Story of the Youths, and the main part of his literary endeavor was to rework the existing books to that end. This, too, indicates that he would not have made special efforts to open his book with a passage from a work not related a priori to Ezr-Neh. Just as the literary milieu of the author of Chr was one in which the Books of Samuel and Kings formed a continuous entity, the same is true of Chr and Ezr in the literary milieu of the author of I Esd. Also, just as the author of Chr chose to begin with the battle of the Gilboa, so too, taking diat continuity for granted, did the author of I Esd decide to begin his book with Josiah's celebration of the Passover. One conjecture, of a different type, that has recently been thrust into the debate concerning the relationship between Chr and Ezr-Neh should be rejected out of hand - I refer to Eskenazi's theory (1986) that the Chronicler and the author of Apocryphal Esdras were one and the same! Eskenazi's simplistic comparison of the work of the Chronicler, forming his own book on the basis of the Books of Samuel and Kings, to that of the author of 1 Esd, forming his book on the basis of Ezr-Neh, and the identification of those two authors, is a priori speculative, even before one 51

Japhet (1991), p. 309: "These claims [i.e., the external indications from I Esd and from the repetition of Ezr l.T‫־‬3a in 2 Chr. 36:22-23] have only peripheral influence on our debate".

Composition

29

checks the 'proofs' for this deduction. Neither the Chronicler nor anyone like him can possibly be credited with the authorship of the Story of the Youths, or even with its inclusion in previously existing material. The Chronicler does not write such things or use material of that type, neither would he disturb the order of events for the sole purpose of interpolating such a story. As to the proofs themselves, they mainly point out ideas common to the Chronicler and the author of I Esd, in contrast to the author of Ezr-Neh. To this one must reply that, while essential ideological differences between books indicate that they were written by different authors, the fact that two works share certain ideas does not testify to common authorship. Eskenazi cites, for example, the 'prominence of the Davidic dynasty' as a 52

central motif of both I Esd and Chr. Both Haggai and Zechariah attach messianic hopes to Zerubbabel, but no-one suggests on that basis that there was any direct connection between them and the authors of Chr and I Esd. Moreover, the description of the author of I Esd as more receptive to foreigners, as was, per Eskenazi, the Chronicler, in contrast to the author of Ezr-Neh, is rather questionable. Her basis for the statement is the difficult Greek text of I Esd 5:49 και έπισυνήχθησαν αύτοις έκ των άλλων εθνών τ η ς γης... οτι έν έχθρα ήσαν αντοίς

και κατίσχυσαν

αύτοΰς πάντα τά εθνη τά erri τ η ς γ η ς , parallel to ‫כי באיבה ע ל י ה • מעמי‬ ‫( הארצות‬Ezr 3:3). Even i f I Esd implies that some of the foreign peoples were cooperating with the returnees, a similar conclusion may be drawn from Darius' decree in Ezr: ‫ומני שים טעם למא די תעבדון עם שבי יהודיא אלך‬ ‫" למבנא בית א ל ה א דך‬Moreover I make a decree regarding what you shall do for these elders of the Jews [or, better: I order you to cooperate with the Jews] for the rebuilding of this house of God" (Ezr 6:8). This argument > l

"The prominence of the Davidic dynasty in I Esdras is best understood as the work of the Chronicler, who shapes Ezra-Nehemiah according to the same tendencies which shaped his earlier work (i.e., Chr]" (p. 49).

30

I Esdras

is scarcely justified by the fact that, according to I Esd, Zerubbabel received permission from Darius. After all, in the canonical Book of Ezr-Neh the entire Restoration is based on decrees issued by Cyrus, Darius and 5

Artaxerxes. ' The author of I Esd was active in a milieu quite different from that of the Chronicler; he has nothing whatsoever in common with the Chronistic school. In sum: the continuity of Chr and Ezr-Neh is not a creation of the author of I Esd, but something inherent in his sources, on the background of which he composed his own work.

" Eskenazi's work evoked criticism in many other points: a philological discussion must be founded on philological method - not every argument is valid. E . g . , one cannot argue that the author of I Esd omitted Nehemiah's memoirs because he esteemed die Davidic dynasty and was reluctant to include Nehemiah's derogatory reference to Solomon. If that were the case he need only have omitted a single verse (13:26) and not ten chapters. If one asserts that the author of I Esd omitted Nehemiah's memoirs because he was more liberal and open to foreigners and did not want to include Nehemiah's harsh verdict against the foreign women - how can one reconcile the fact that the same author includes Ezra's entire treatment of the problem of the foreign women (Ezr 9-10), even firmly terminating the story, unlike the canonical Ezr, with the expulsion of the women together with their sons?! One cannot say that the Chronicler omitted the story of the exile of Samaria because he wished to leave the Israelites in their homeland, while at the same time that same author relates nothing of the history of the northern kingdom so that there was no reason for him 10 include the chapter recounting its destruction; on the other hand, one cannot deny that the Chronicler, though omitting 2 Kgs 17, by no means disregarded the Northerners' deportation; ‫ וישב א ל הפ ל יטה‬...‫ ל א מ ר מ י ישראל שובו אל הי‬...‫וילכו הרצים‬ ‫ כי בשובכם על ה• א ח י כ ם ובניכם ל ר ח מ י ם לפני שוביהם ולשוב‬...‫הנשארת ל כ ם מכף מלכי אשור‬ ‫" לארץ הזאת‬So couriers went... saying. O people of Israel, return to the Lord... that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria.... For if you return to the Lord, your brethren and your children will find compassion with their captors, and return to this land" (2 Chr 30:6-9).

Composition

31

b. Continuity of Ezr-Neh

Any scholar dealing with the Book of Ezr-Neh would dearly love to find literary evidence for what seems obvious: a text in which the material centering on Ezra is not part of the account of Nehemiah's activities but takes its logical place in the story of Ezra. Indeed, after the author has described Ezra's first year of activity (Ezr 7-10), he clears the stage entirely for Nehemiah (Neh 1-7), unexpectedly bringing Ezra back for the reading of the Law (Neh 8). The introduction of the whole episode of the reading is palpably artificial. In Chap. 7, Nehemiah describes his attempt to repopulate the empty city of Jerusalem and tells of finding the genealogical register of the first returnees, which is then cited in full. The list ends with the assertion that the newcomers l i v e d in their towns'. Immediately following is the episode of the reading of the Law forming an awkward sequel to something that occurred decades before: the returnees settle in their respective towns - at the beginning of the Restoration period, and. when the seventh month comes, they assemble to read the Law - with Ezra: ‫ וכל ישראל בעריהם ויגע החדש השביעי ובני ישראל בעריהם‬...‫וישבו הכהנים‬ .‫ ויאמרו לעזרא‬...‫" ויאספו כל העם כאיש אחד‬So the priests... and all Israel, lived in their towns. And when the seventh month had come, the children of Israel were in their towns. And all the people gathered as one man..., and they told Ezra the scribe..." (Neh 7:72-8:1). This makes no sense at all! Moreover, the reading of the Law seriously disturbs Nehemiah's story. Nehemiah is faced with a difficult situation: ‫והעיר רחבת ידיים והעם‬ ‫" מעט בתוכה ואין בתים בנוים‬The city was wide and large, but tire people within it were few and no houses had been built" (Neh 7:4-5). Accordingly, he decides on a owouaapos, that is, a redistribution of population in order to settle Jerusalem, and to that end makes use of the list of immigrants (7:6-72a). However, the text, after quoting the entire list verbatim, goes

32

I Esdras

off on a completely different course: the reading of the Torah, the prayer of the Levites, the covenant - a long episode, spanning Chapters 8-10, having nothing to do with the repopulating of Jerusalem. Only in 11:1 is the previous topic resumed: ‫ ושאר העם הפילו גורלות‬,‫וישבו שרי העם בירשלם‬ ‫" להביא א ח ד מן העשרה לשבת בירושלם עיר הקדש ותשע הידות בערים‬Now the leaders of the people lived in Jerusalem; and the rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of ten live in Jerusalem, the holy city, while nine tenths remained in the other towns". These problems have stimulated scholars to try to place the reading of the Torah in context within the story of Ezra; many of them hold that it should come between Ezr chapters 8 and 9: Ezra arrives in Judah, and the first thing he does is to read the Torah to the people. This leads naturally to the divorce of the foreign wives in Ezr 9-10. Such an order of events is implied by the parallel episode in Neh 13:1-3 ...‫ביום ה ה ו א נקרא בספר משה‬ ‫ ויהי כשמעם את‬...‫ונמצא כתוב בו אשר לא יבוא עמני ומאבי בקהל האלהים עד עולם‬ ‫" התורה ויבדילו כל ערב מישראל‬On that day they read from the book of Moses... and it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of God... When the people heard the law, they separated from Israel all those of foreign descent". The text of I Esd, however, does not help in properly locating the reading of the Torah, i.e., before the 'separation'. The whole episode in 9:37-55 (Neh 8) appears just aftg! the separation from the foreign wives, 8:88-9:36 (Ezr 10). Does, then, I Esd possibly testify to an original different layout? I Esd's starting point indicates that that is not the case. I Esd does not begin its account of the reading of the Torah with a parallel to Neh 8:1, but with a parallel to 7:72 ‫ ויגע החדש השביעי ובני ישראל‬...‫וישבו הכהנים והלוים‬ ‫" בעריהם‬So the priests, the Levites... And when the seventh month had come, the children of Israel were in their towns", I Esd 9:37. Now the first part of Neh 7:72 summarizes the list of returnees in that chapter, echoing the opening of the list in v. 6:

Composition

33 ...‫ וישובו לירושלם וליהודה איש לעירו‬.‫( א ל ה בני המדינה העלים‬6! ...‫ וכל ישראל בעריהם‬...‫( וישבו הכהנים והלוים‬72!

(6) These were the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of those exiles... and they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his town... (72) the priests and the Levites... settled in Jerusalem... and all Israel were in their towns.

The structure of the verse also testifies to its role in context: the first part - ‫" וישבו הכהנים‬So the priests... settled..." - ends the list, while the second - ...‫" ויגע החדש‬And when the seventh month had come..," - leads into the sequel, also repeating the concluding words ‫" וכל ישראל בעריהם‬and all Israel were in their towns". One can hardly deny the role of Neh 7:72 as a transition from the list of returnees, who scatter around the country, each settling in his own town, to the events in Jerusalem that dictate assembling the people from their respective homes. If so, what role can one assign to this verse in at! entirely different context - between the story of the separation and that of the reading of the Torah, which are juxtaposed in I Esd? The possible explanations for the processes through which the texts took shape indicate that, at this point, I Esd is probably secondary. For if one postulates that I Esd represents the original order, i.e., Neh 7:72 ff. originally occurred after Ezr 10. then, of necessity, the first contact between Neh 7:72 and the list of returnees preceding it in the Book of Nehemiah was formed when the story of the reading of the Torah was transferred to the text of Nehemiah. Only in the next stage could someone have transferred the list together with its termination v. 72 to Ezr 2, yet 1 Esd also includes Ezr 2 together with its final verse! It is inconceivable that I Esd represents a redaction prior to the transferal of the reading of the Torah to the story of Nehemiah, and at the same time a redaction two stages later when the list together with its final verse were relocated to Ezr 2.

34

I Esdras Thus, I Esd cannot testify in any way to the position of the reading of 54

the Torah in the context of Ezra's activities. Moreover, the situation readily proves that I Esd is a reworked version of a redaction resembling that in the canonical book, which reproduced the list of immigrants twice (hence the duplication of the conclusion of the list in I Esd), and which included both Ezra and Nehemiah. The author of the reworked version brought together the Book of Ezr and the reading of the Torah by Ezra; but he began too early with the verse that sums up the list of immigrants, 55

thus leaving us a key to the formation of the Book of I E s d The background might be purely technical: i f we take the division of the text in the M T as proof of an ancient tradition, it might be important to note that while Ezr 7:72 is positioned directly before 8:1 ff. without any interval, 7:72 is separated from the previous verse by a sectional division (parashah petuhah). To summarize the interrelationship between the Books of Chr-Ezr-Neh: (1) it seems probable that Chr and Ezr-Neh formed a single, continuous entity before the author of I Esd set out to use them for his work; (2) but the link between Ezr and Neh 8 was his own invention. 5 4

Sec Bertholet (1902), pp. xvi-xvii; Kaufmann (1956), p. !05: Rudolph (1949), pp. xiii-xiv.

5

' Various hypotheses have been advanced in the scholarly literature to account for the presence of this verse in 1 E s d , in order to confirm I Esd as evidence of the original edition, linking Neh 8 with Ezr. Mowmekei (1964), pp. 21-25. suggested that it is a gloss, pointing to stylistic differences between the translation of the verse and its parallel in 5:45.46 (Ezr 2:70, 3:1). These are shaky grounds, however, because one cannot rely on secondary stylistic differences in the work of a translator who is anything but stylistically uniform - his inconsistencies crop up not only in passages several chapters apart, but even in the. same chapter and the same verse. In any case, a solution involving the argument of late accretions is not attractive. Another problem is, why was it considered necessary to patch the text together with this intermediate verse. The argument of Pohlmann (1970), pp. 69-71 that 9:37 is not to be associated at all with Neh 7:72 has little in its favor. Bohlcr (1997), pp. 86-92, has recentlyadopted this view and discussed it in detail.

Composition

35

III. The Position of the Letter of Complaint to Artaxerxes a. The Sequence of Events Ezr 4:6-23 interrupts the chronological sequence of events in Ezr 1-6, because it interpolates Xerxes and Artaxerxes between Cyrus and Darius, although both reigned after Darius. The explanation is well known: this is not a historical sequence but a literary one. and the author/redactor has provided a sure indication at the point where the historical sequence proper is resumed: v. 24 is an obvious Wiederaufnahrm to v. 5. The first passage of Ezr 4 tells about the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin trying to dishearten the builders ‫" כל ימי כורש מ ל ן פרס ועד מלכות דריוש מלך פרס‬all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia" (v. 5). 'This is echoed in v. 24: ‫באדין בטלת עבידת בית אלהא די‬ ‫" בירושלם והות בטלא עד שנת תרתין למלכות דריוש מלך פרס‬Then the work on the house of God which is in Jerusalem stopped; and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia". In addition, the function in context of v. 24 is clear from its content: it cannot be a summary or an outcome of the measures described in the letter to Artaxerxes. It refers to an interruption in the building of 'the House of God', while the entire passage 4:6-23 contains no hint, let alone explicit mention, of the house of God. In their complaint, the writers inform the king that the returnees are ‫קריתא מרדתא ובאישתא בנין ושוריא‬ ‫" שכללו ואשיא יחיטו‬rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city: they are. finishing the walls and repairing the foundations" (v. 12); the king's interests will be damaged ‫ " הן קריתא דך תתבנא ושוריה ישתכללון‬i f this city is rebuilt and the walls finished" (v. 13), and he will lose his hegemony over the province Beyond the River ‫ " הן קריתא תתבנא ושוריה ישתכללון‬i f this city is rebuilt and its walls finished" (v. 16). The king indeed decides to halt the work: ‫ קריתא דך לא תתבנא‬...‫" כען שימו טעם‬Therefore make a decree that... this city be not rebuilt" (v. 21). There is no mention of the House of God

36

I Esdras

either in the complaint nor in the response. A correspondence concerning one subject - the rebuilding of the city and the walls - cannot be summed up by referring to something else - the construction of the Temple. The role of v. 24 as a Wiederaufnahme is thus confirmed, and Ezr 56

4:6-24 is clearly out of context. It turns out that I Esd provides us, as it were, with first-hand evidence of the extraneous nature of the passage: Ezr 4:6-23 has disappeared from its 'inconvenient' position in the MT. In I Esd, the direct continuation of 5:70 (Ezr 4:5) is in 6:1 (Ezr 5:1), as it should be. But what has happened to Ezr 4:6-24? The passage has not disappeared but merely changed places; it may now be found as 2:15-25, i.e., immediately after the material parallel to Ezr 1. What is the relationship between the two redactions?

b. Preamble to the Correspondence: 2:15-16 (Ezr 4:6-11)

Ezr 4:6-11 is a rather complex text, including several preambles to letters, only one of which is actually quoted (the parts obviously not represented in I Esd are set in brackets): ‫ ובימי‬7 .‫ !ובמלכות אחשורוש ב ת ח ל ת מלכותו בתבו שטנה[ על ישבי יהודה וירושלם‬6 ‫ מ ת ר ד ת ט ב א ל ושאר בנותיו על א ר ת ח ש ש ת א מלך פ ר ס ]וכתב‬0‫א ר ת ח ש ש ת א כ ת ב בשל‬ ‫ ר ח ו ם בעל ט ע ם ושמשי ס פ ר א ]כתבו אגרה‬8 .(‫הנשתון כ ת ו ב ארמית ומתרגם ארמית‬ ‫ אדיו[ ר ח ו ם בעל ט ע ם ושמשי ס פ ר א ושאר‬1 .‫ח ד ה על ירושלם לארתחששתא מ ל כ א כנמא‬ .‫כנותהוץ דיניא ] ו א פ ר ס ת כ י א טרפליא א פ ר ס י א ארכויא כ כ ל י א שושנכיא דהיא עלמיא‬ ‫ ושאר א מ י א די הגלי אסנפר ר ב א ויקירא[ והותב ה מ ו בקריה די שמרין ושאר עבר‬10 ‫ דנה פרשגן אגרתא די שלחו עלוהי על א ר ת ח ש ש ת א מ ל כ א עבדך אנש‬11 .‫נהרה וכענת‬ .‫עבר נהרה וכענת‬ (6) [And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation] against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. (7) And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam and Milhredath and Tabeel 56

Taltnon (1976), p. 322, points out that this literary device is used in Ezr-Neh as a technique for the insertion of an independent unit into a given context and cites further examples. Some authors reject this explanation of the passage's position in context; see Liver (1965).

Composition

37

and the rest of their associates wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; [the letter was written in Aramaic and translated]. (8) Rehum the commander and Shimshai die scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king as follows - (9) Then wrote Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates, the judges, [the governors, the officials, the Persians, the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is, the Elamites, (10) and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deported] and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River, and now (11) this is a copy of the letter that they sent: To Artaxerxes the king: Your servants, the men of the province Beyond the River, send greeting.

The whole passage is summed up in I Esd 2:15-16 as a single, clearly phrased preamble, the retroversion of which yields the following text: ‫ובימי א ר ת ח ש ש ת א מ ל ך פ ר ס כ ת ב עליו על ישבי יהודה וירושלם בשלם ו מ ת ר ד ת ו ט ב א ל‬ ‫ו ר ח ו ם בעל ט ע ם ושמשי ס פ ר א ושאר כנותהון די יתבין בשמריו ושאר !אתריא! דנה‬ ‫ על מראנא מ ל כ א א ר ת ח ש ש ת א עבדך ר ח ו ם בעל ט ע ם ושמשי ס פ ר א ושאו־‬:‫פרשגן אגרתא‬ .‫כנותהון ודיניא אנש עבר נהרה‬ And in the days of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, there wrote to him against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem Bishlam, Mithrcdath, Tabeel, Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, the rest of their associates who live in Samaria and the rest of the places. This is a copy of the letter. T o our master, Artaxerxes the king: Your servants Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates and the judges, people of Beyond the River.

Does I Esd represent a shorter, more authentic text than the MT? One cannot easily state that the endre text of the M T was available to the author of I Esd, but it can be proven that I Esd is a reworked version that abbreviated the source in order to simplify the text: As only one letter is quoted, I Esd presents only one preamble. Xerxes (Ahasuerus) has completely disappeared (though ‫" על יושבי יהודה וירושלם‬against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem" has been transplanted to the letter to Artaxerxes); and the two preambles to the letter to Artaxerxes, one revolving around Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel (Ezr 4:7) and the other around Rehum and Shimshai (v. 8), are combined in I Esd with the various

38

I Esdras

writers being listed as the writers of the letter that is subsequently quoted. This combination of the two groups of names is artificial, for the king's response is addressed exclusively to Rehum and Shimshai, both in I Esd 2:21 and in Ezr 4:17, and it is they who carry out the royal decree in I Esd 2:25 and Ezr 4:23. Moreover, it is doubtful whether I Esd points to the existence of an earlier stage of the text without the list of nations (Ezr 4:9-10), as it includes part of v. 9 and a remnant of the list -

n‫־‬jh,

understood as 'the judges', I Esd 2:16. Thus, the text of 1 Esd represents a thorough reworking of a version similar to the M T . The reworking was presumably done by whomever transplanted the whole passage to its new position.

c. The Final Verse 2:25 (Ezr 4:24) and the Chronological Sequence In I Esd, the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes, 2:15-25, occurs just after Cyrus' edict and the first stages of its realization, i.e., just after the material parallel to Ezr 1. Chronologically speaking, therefore, the sequence here is no improvement on the MT: Artaxerxes, who reigned after Darius, 57

is interposed squarely between Cyrus and Darius. Even i f we emend the king's name to Cambyses, in accord with historical truth - as indeed was done by Josephus (Ant. X I , §21) - the letter of complaint is still out of context: it is not attached to any event; we have not been told that the exiles have arrived back or begun to build - but the complaint has been submitted, and moreover to another king! There is nothing in I Esd that might alleviate this chronological difficulty and bridge the discrepancy in content since the verse parallel to Ezr 4:24 - I Esd 2:25 - loses its role as 58

a Wiederaufnahme in its new position. Thus, the extraneous episode " Note the mention of 'Λρταξίρξηδ· ύ των Μήδωι‫ ׳‬in the L X X to Dan 6:1. 5 3

The material in I Esd parallel to Ezr 2:1-4:5, i.e., the list of returnees, the building of the altar, the laying of the temple's foundations and the complaint of the adversaries, comes only later, after the Story of the. Youths. Consequently, the verse 2:25 is merely part of a continuous sequence in I Esd.

Composition

39

from Artaxerxes' reign has not changed place alone - the verse that was supposed to point up its extraneous naUire has gone with it. in fact becoming a part of it. Possibly, as it has been assigned a new role, the formulation of the verse has been modified, smoothing over the elements that implied a pause in the account: instead of the MT's ...‫באדין בטלת עבידת בית אלהא‬ ...‫" והות בטלא עד‬Then the work on the house of God... stopped; and it ceased until...", the text of I Esd presumably read ‫ובטלת עבידת בית אלהא די‬ ...‫" בירושלם עד‬And the work on the house of God which is in Jerusalem ceased until...". Finally, in I Esd, too, this verse is concerned with the interruption of work on the Temple, and as such, it is not a fitting summary for a correspondence about the rebuilding of the whole city. Nevertheless, in I Esd, unlike the M T , the 'house of God' has a certain part in the correspondence.

d. The Insertion of the Temple into the Letter In contrast to the situation in the MT, the Temple has found its way into the letter to Artaxerxes as it appears in I Esd. 1. In 2:17 (Ezr 4:12), instead of the MT's ‫ואשיא יחיטו‬, "and repairing the foundations", the Greek I Esd reads και ναόν υποβάλλονται, that is, "and laying the foundations of the Temple". Possibly the translator had a different source, reading, say.‫ואשי היכלא יחיטו‬. Such a reading could have derived from a variant ‫( ואשיה‬with lie instead of alef), understanding the he as a possessive pronominal suffix (cf. K U L θβμελίουϊ αυτής ανύψωσαν in the L X X ) ; the pronoun was then replaced by its antecedent - the foundations of the temple.

59

Alternatively, this might be merely the

translator's own interpretation.

5

' Compare 8:78 ( E z r 9:9) ‫" ל ר ו מ ם א ת בית אלהינו ולהעמיד א ת חרבתיו‬to set up the house of our God. to repair its ruins", και δ ο ξ ά σ α ι τ ό lepov τ ο ΰ κυρίου ημών και έγεΐραι

τήι‫ « ׳‬ρ η μ ο ν Σιών "the ruins of Zion"; and cf. below concerning the

combined consideration of the city and the Temple in I Esd.

40

I Esdras 2. Further on, the MT's expression ‫ היכלא מלוזנא‬nbn"we use the

salt of the palace", is understood to refer to the Temple in 2:18 (Ezr 4:14). In reality, the expression signifies the writers' submission to the king; it has nothing to do with the rebuilding of the Temple. Though it may have been altered in the source, it was more likely understood by the translator as referring to the ongoing work of the temple: Kai ertel evepydrai TCL m.7a TOV vaov. Thus the Temple clearly figures in I Esd's version of 60

the letter of complaint. Whether the translator was adhering to his source or not, the Temple is clearly secondary in this document. This juxtaposition of the laying of foundations for the Temple and Artaxerxes' reign is rather puzzling. Moreover, while the foundation of the Temple is clearly highlighted in 2:17-18, it subsequently disappears from the rest of the complaint and is not mentioned at all in the king's reply. Finally, the very combination of the building of the Temple and the rebuilding of the city indicates the secondary nature of the account in I Esd. The house of God is the central pivot of the Restoration (Ezr 1-6), together with Ezra's activities (Ezr 7-10). The rebuilding of the city, its gates and walls, is Nehemiah's business. The complaint sent to Artaxerxes seems to be more pertinent to activities 1

of Nehemiah's type, in which the foundation of the Temple has no place.*

However, for I Esd, in its particular structure, it was essential to bring in the foundation of the Temple at this point. Indeed, the letter of complaint is quoted immediately alter the edict of Cyrus which explicitly permits the rebuilding of the Temple; it would be implausible that a complaint about the reconstruction of Jerusalem would not refer to the Temple! Moreover, the concluding verse 2:25, which refers only to the rebuilding Note that the Aramaic/Hebrew word for salt, ‫ מ ל ח‬, is phonetically similar to the word ‫ מ ל א כ ה‬, 'work'. 6 1

Bohler (1997), pp. 78-110, argues that the original edition preserved in I E s d attributed the rebuilding of Jerusalem to Zerubbabel and Ezra while the later edition of Ezr-Neh suppressed the references to the building of the city in order to reserve it for Nehemiah's activities.

Composition

41

of the Temple, would be irrelevant in I Esd i f the laying of its foundations had not been mentioned. In view of what we have demonstrated concerning the letter of complaint and its last verse in I Esd, the conclusion is inescapable: the sequence of the material in I Esd reflects a reworked version of a text structured as in the Book of Ezra.

e. Duplication of the Founding of the Temple As we have seen, the reader learns in the letter of complaint that the foundations of the Temple are being laid, 2:17, and that the work on the Temple in general is gaining momentum, 2:18. Therefore, when one reaches I Esd 5, parallel to Ezr 3, which relates how the foundations of the Temple were laid, a certain tension may be created in the sequence of events. The translator seems to have sought to solve the problem by rendering the Hebrew root ‫' יסד‬found', 'lay foundations', which occurs several times in Ezr 3, by using general terms connected with building: oiKc^opeiv, οικοδομή, eyepcas, avoiding any direct reference to the laying of 62

foundations. Nevertheless, the verb θεμελιοΰν, the usual equivalent of ‫יסד‬, does appear in the chapter, in a passage that has no parallel in the MT: 5:55 (an expansion of Ezr 3:8). I f this passage comes from the main base of I Esd, there are only two possibilities: either the translator was varying his translation, regardless of the problem pointed out above, or he was using OepeXioOv in a broader sense (a sense also acquired by ‫ )יסד‬as evidenced by his use of the same verb as a translation for ‫' שכלל‬finish', 'complete' in 6:10 (Ezr 5:9). At any rate, elsewhere in the chapter the text is concerned with building in general, and one might even fall into the error of believing, as Josephus did, that it was referring to the completion of the building/'' 6 3

6 5

5:52, 56, 59, 6 0 ( E z r 3:6, 10, 11. 12). Ant. X I , §80. Just as Josephus misinterpreted I Esd the Syriac translator misinterpreted the M T ; for details sec Talshir (1983).

42

I Esdras

IV. The Interpolation of the Story of the Youths a. Duplication in the Sequence of Events Where is the text leading in Ezr 4:24, or its equivalent in I Esd 2:25? In Ezr, it prepares the ground for the initiative taken at the start of Darius' reign to renew the building (Ezr 5:1 ff). In I Esd, it provides a springboard for the Story of the Three Youths, I Esd 3:1 ff, which takes place in Darius' reign. Both links seem quite plausible - but only at first sight. The problems come to light if one considers the entire span of the story. In Ezr, we are told that the building was interrupted till Darius' second year (Ezr 4:24); at that point, Haggai and Zechariah prophesied inspiring the rise of the leaders Zerubbabel and Jeshua, who renewed the construction; despite the intervention of the local authorities, the work was brought to a successful close (Ezr 5-6). Not so in I Esd. There, too, the work is suspended till Darius' second year (I Esd 2:25), but then the king holds a banquet (in his second year, 5:6) during which Zerubbabel's wisdom is revealed, as a consequence of which he receives the permits necessary to go to Judah and resume the building (Story of the Youths, 3:1 -5:6). He indeed reaches Judah - a list of the immigrants is provided, 5:7-45 (Ezr 2) - the altar is built and first steps are made to build the Temple itself, but then the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin interfere and the work is halted through the entire reign of Cyrus until Darius' accession to the throne, 5:46-70 (Ezr 3:1-4:5). It is then renewed with the prophets' encouragement in Darius' second year, 6:1 ff (Ezr 5:1 ff). The sequence of events in 1 Esd is basically impossible: the work is interrupted twice until the beginning of Darius' reign. It is resumed twice, each time in Darius' second year. The interruption of work is documented twice in parallel passages - 2:25 , 5:70 - and continued twice, once in the Story of the Youths and a second time on the initiative of the prophets. 6 4

64

At first sight one might suggest a Wiedemufiwhme in I E s d . but with the literary

Composition

43

In other words, the plot of I Esd goes forward from the same point in two different directions, the two accounts subsequently meeting again at a new common point; hence, each account excludes the other.

65

b. Cyrus' Reign and Darius' Reign The sequence of the material is faulty in yet another respect. The Story of the Youths brings us into Darius' reign, but it is followed by material parallel to events recounted in Ezr as taking place under Cyrus, as i f unaware of Darius' appearance in the Story of the Youths. (1) the preparations for the building of the Temple are done with Cyrus' permission, no mention being made of the new license granted by Darius. (2) After the neighbors' interference, the work halts for the duration of Cyrus' reign, up to Darius' accession - although we have already reached Darius' reign. (3) When the work is resumed with the encouragement of the prophets, and Tattenai and his associates write to Darius, the king investigates and rediscovers Cyrus' decree - as if his own permit had never been issued.

66

units reversed. While in E z r the units are 2:1-4:5, 4:6-23, with 4:24 as a Wiederaufnahme to 4:5, in I Esd the order is: 2:15-25 ( E z r 4:6-24), 5:7-70 (Ezr 2:1-4:5), with 5:70 ( E z r 4:5) as a Wiederaufnahme to E z r 4:24. But there is a cardinal difference: In E z r the letter of complaint is parenthetical, not part of the main sequence of events in point of chronology or substance. In I Esd die (hypothetical) parentheses enclose a large complex which is by no means extraneous to the sequence of events, but continues the plot. 6

' The difficulty exists even without the Story of the Youths. I.e., if one argues that the Story of the Youths is indeed not an integral element, but I E s d preserves the original position of the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes, one obtains the following sequence: Edict of Cyrus; letter of complaint, after which the work ceases till Darius' second year; list of returnees, building of the Temple and interference of the neighboring nations, causing a halt in the building till Darius' second year. This layout is, of course, impossible, the work on the Temple being halted once because of the letter and once because of the neighboring nations' interference. For the first two points, sec, in particular, 5:53, 68, 70; for the last point see the whole situation in chapter 6.

44

I Esdras

c. Darius' Permit - the Return of the Vessels, the Building of the Temple and the Rebuilding of the City In the Story of the Youths, the king, impressed by Zerubbabel's sagacity, encourages him to ask for more than had been promised, in a verse - 4:42 - that serves as a transition between the two parts of the narrative. Thereupon Zerubbabel reminds the king of his previous vow, otherwise unknown; the only possible explanation is that he is referring to the edict of Cyrus. In that vow, says Zerubbabel, the king made three promises: (1) the Temple vessels would be returned; (2) the Temple would be restored; (3) Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Darius writes letters permitting the city and the Temple to be rebuilt and consents to the return of the vessels, yet the vessels have already returned to Jerusalem - with Sheshbazzar! Thus, the references to the vessels in the Story of the Youths, 4:44, 57, are inconsistent with the descriptions of the vessels being brought to Jerusalem in Cyrus' time, 2:13-14; compare also 6:17-18. It would appear that in I Esd the vessels are redeemed twice! The other two topics, the building of the city and the Temple, are intertwined both in the vow and in Darius' letters. The letters clear the way for Zerubbabel and his companions to rebuild Jerusalem, 4:47; they allow them to procure wood for the construction of the city, 4:49, and allot generous funds for the construction of the Temple, 4:51. The text goes on to promise the builders of the city their freedom, 4:53, and to ensure that the Levites receive their part until the work on the Temple is completed and Jerusalem rebuilt, 4:55. When the people learn of the events from Zerubbabel, they bless God who has enabled them to go up and build Jerusalem and the Temple, 4:63. The rebuilding of the city is thus highly prominent in Darius' letters - but the promise is never fulfilled. The next chapters, which are parallel to Ezr, are confined entirely to the building of the Temple. Only very late, in the time of Ezra, is there a hint

Composition

45

of the rebuilding of Jerusalem: και δοξάσαι το lepov του κυρίου ημών και eyetpai τήν έρημον Σιων, 8:78 (Ezr 9:9). Perhaps it is not surprising that 'Zion' is mentioned only in I Esd, whereas the M T is concerned with the Temple only: ‫" לרומם א ת בית אלהינו ולהעמיד א ת חרבתיו‬to set up the house of our God, to repair its ruins".

67

Besides the above references, the building of the Temple and the reconstruction of the city have already been mentioned together in I Esd in the letter of complaint. This is a combination unique to I Esd; it would therefore be quite plausible to ascribe all these changes to the same hand. We have seen that the position of the letter of complaint in I Esd is problematic on several counts: it is chronologically anomalous; it clashes with the sequence of events; and it poses literary problems. Nevertheless, one might say that these very aspects gave it its position in I Esd. In the canonical Ezr, most of the text prior to the letter of complaint is already acquainted with Zerubbabel; this is the case with regard to the list of returnees (Ezr 2), the building of the altar, the foundation of the Temple, and the interference of the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin (3:1 -4:5)/'* This entire section (Ezr 2:1-4:5) must be deferred, therefore, to some place after the Story of the Youths, which first brings Zerubbabel onto the stage in I Esd. On the other hand, the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes is, of course, unacquainted with Zerubbabel, so there is no need to hold it back till after the Story of the Youths. In addition, the letter, and particularly its last verse 2:25, explains why the construction of the Temple was 6 7

Note that the continuation of the verse, ‫" ו ל ת ת לנו גדר ביהודה ובירושלם‬and to give us a fence [ R S V : continuation] in Judea and Jerusalem", might have also contributed to 1

the development discerned in I E s d . Some scholars considered this fence" to be a hint of Nehemiah's wall, even going so far as to conclude that Nehemiah and his actions preceded Ezra. However, see Rudolph in his commentary, p. 88, to the effect that there is no such hint, for the text is speaking of a fence 'in Judea and Jerusalem'. s s

I.e., all the text apart from Ezr 1. The implication is, incidentally, that the author of this redaction did not identify Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel; and cf. below, pp. 60-61.

46

I Esdras

interrupted till the reign of Darius, thus becoming an excellent springboard for the Story of the Youths. Essentially, it is not the letter of complaint that has been displaced, but the whole block of narrative revolving around Zerubbabel, Ezr 2.1-4:5, which has been moved to a position after the Story of the Youths. The reason for the new arrangement is really quite 69

simple: to permit the introduction of the Story of the Youths. However, the author/redactor who created this new layout did only half the work: he carefully formed a new outer frame, but failed to notice that the story could not be properly integrated in the surrounding material, as it led the plot forward from the same point of departure and to the same termination as the plot of another literary unit, parallel with the M T , which was also absorbed into I Esd.

70

Thus, the Story of the Youths was not properly woven into the fabric 71

of the book; it did not become a natural link in the chain of events. This may suggest that the story was not originally written for the present context. Nevertheless, since it clearly aims at rounding out the figure of Zerubbabel, it is not inconceivable that the author himself, and not some later interpolator, thrust the story into this account of the early days of the Restoration.

d. Zerubbabel's Role in I Esdras The direct result of introducing the Story of the Youths into the account of the Restoration period was to magnify Zenibbabel's role in the history of his nation. To be sure, Zerubbabel occupies a central position in Ezr. He leads the returning exiles (Ezr 2); together with Jeshua, it is he who builds the altar and lays the foundations of the Temple (Ezr 3), and is ‫ ״־׳‬Sec Pohlmann (1970), p. 35. Kaufmann, p. 543, defined T E.sd derisively as a 'literary miscarriage' - he was not far wrong in relation to the incorporation of the Story of the Youths. 71

A similar case is the citation of the duplicate tradition of the division of the kingdom in the L X X to Kings (3Kgdms 12:24a-z). There, too, one has a tradition providing an alternative course of events.

Composition

47

consequently addressed by the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin (Ezr 4:1-5). Finally, it is he, once again with the high priest at his side, who resumes the construction of the Temple at the beginning of Darius' reign 2

(Ezr 5).' The biblical account, however, does not credit him personally with changing the course of history: Cyrus issues his edict, and the people depart with Zerubbabel, Jeshua and others leading them. Later, the call of the prophets inspires the resumption of work, and the complaint of the governor Beyond the River induces Darius to renew Cyrus' edict. Zerubbabel invariably takes second place in shaping the course of events. Subsequently, Ezra will be credited with far more initiative when he immigrates during Artaxerxes' reign as a leader with official government recognition (Ezr 7), and the same is true of Nehemiah (Neh 2), but not so of Zerubbabel. The Story of the Youths remedies the situation. In the author's hands, Zerubbabel, too, becomes a leader of the same - i f not higher - status as the other leaders. By virtue of his wisdom, he persuades the Persian king to treat his nation favorably. Moreover, an examination of the favors bestowed by Darius on Zerubbabel quickly reveals that he achieves more than Ezra and Nehemiah: he journeys to Judah, provided with permits far exceeding what the immigrants received from Cyrus and Darius and Ezra and Nehemiah from Artaxerxes. One receives the impression that the author borrowed whatever possible from the material at his disposal - and then added more. 1. In the Story of the Youths, Zerubbabel returns to Judah with the Temple vessels - armed with Darius' letters, 4:44, 57, as Sheshbazzar does with Cyrus' permission (Ezr 1:7-11), He has permission to build the Temple, 4:45, 51, just as Sheshbazzar, and later Zerubbabel himself, did '‫ יי‬Observe, too, Neh 12:47, which endeavors to sum up the whole period: ‫וכל ישראל‬ • ‫ מניות ה מ ש ר ד י‬0‫" בימי זרבבל ובימי נחמיה נתני‬And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel and in the days of Nehemiah gave the daily portions for the singers". There is no need to belittle Zerubbabel's role in Ezr-Neh, as Eskenazi does (p. 45), solely in order to stress his central position in I E s d .

48

I Esdras

with Cyrus' and Darius' permission (Ezr 1 and 6), and to build the city like Nehemiah (Neh 2). He receives everything necessary to build the Temple, 4:51 ,just as Darius found recorded in Cyrus' edict in his archive (Ezr 6:4 "Let the cost be paid from the royal treasury") and reaffirmed himself (Ezr 6:8 "The cost is to be paid to these men in full and without delay from the royal revenue, the tribute of the province from Beyond the River"). He receives funds for all the needs of the Temple, 4:52, just as Darius had written, (Ezr 6:9 "And whatever is needed... for burnt offerings to the God of heaven... let that be given to them day by day without fail"; cf. Ezr 7:17, 20-22). The returning exiles and the priests receive generous tax exemptions, 4:49, and cf. 4: 50, 53, just as Ezra received for the Temple servants (Ezr 7:24 "We also notify you that it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll upon any one of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the doorkeepers, the temple servants, or other servants of this 7

house of God"). ' 2. The similarity is even closer if one considers the permits awarded in the Story of the Youths as against those given to Nehemiah.

74

This

comparison is particularly interesting in light of the make-up of 1 Esd, in which there is no trace of Nehemiah's activities. Nehemiah requests: ‫אגרות יתנו לי על פחוות עבר הנהר אשר יעבירוני עד‬ ‫" אשר אבוא אל יהודה‬...let letters be given me to the governors of the 7 1

The freedom granted to the land and to the new arrivals (4:49, SO, 53) is more similar to the benefits offered by Demetrius to the Jews in 1 Mace 10:29, 31; or to Judah's request from the king, 11:28 ττοιήσαι τ ή ν Ί ο υ δ α ί α ν ά φ ο ρ ο λ ό γ η τ ο ν , as in our v. 50: και ττασαΐ' τ η ν χώραι‫׳‬, r\v κ ρ α τ ή σ ο υ σ ι ν , αφορολόγητοι·« αυτοί 5 ύττάρχαν. The warning to officials not to approach the Jews' homes (v. 49) is not clearly paralleled in Ezr-Neh; perhaps it may be seen as an echo of Ezr 6:6 ‫כען תתני‬ ‫ רחיקין הוו מן ת מ ה‬...‫" פ ח ת עבר גהרה‬Now therefore, Tattenai governor of the province Beyond the River... keep away".

7 4

Kellermann (1967), p. 130-144, draws far-reaching conclusions, arguing that the account in 1 Esd is a polemic against Nehemiah and portraying each and every detail in Darius' letters as a controversy with Nehemiah.

49

Composition

province Beyond the River, that they may let me pass through until I come to Judah" (Neh 2:7), and Darius writes for Zerubbabel (4:47): Και ε γ ρ α ψ ο

1

α ύ τ φ τάς « π ι σ τ ο λ ά ς π ρ ο ς π ά ν τ α ς

τοττάρχας και σ τ ρ α τ η γ ο ύ ς κάί αατράπας,

τους

οικοδόμους κ«!

'ίνα ττροττ£‫׳‬μψωσιν

αυτόν

καί τους μ έ τ ' α ύ τ ο ΰ π ά ν τ α ς α ν α β α ί ν ο ν τ α ς οίκοδομήσαι την Ιερουσαλήμ.

Nehemiah further asks for ‫אגרת אל אסף שמר הפרדס אשר למלך אשר יתן‬ ‫" לי עצים לקרות א ת שערי הגירה אשר לבית ולחומת העיר‬a letter to Asaph, the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress of the temple, and for the wall of the city" (Neh 2:8); while in I Esd 4:48 we read: Και π ά σ ι ν το'ις τ ο π ά ρ χ α ι ς ev Κοίλη Συρί
These are the two specific requests made by Nehemiah: a letter of safe passage and a permit to procure timber. These are precisely the two first things granted Zerubbabel in the letters Darius writes for him. Both personages, upon coming to Judah, are accompanied by a considerable retinue. Neh 2:9 ‫" וישלח עמי המלך שרי חיל ופרשים‬Now the king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen". I Esd 5:2 καί Δαρείος σ υ ν α π έ σ τ ε ι λ ε ν

μ ε τ ' αυτών

ιππείς

χίλιους

£ως του

άποκαταστήσοα αυτούς ε ι ς Ιερουσαλήμ μ ε τ ' ειρήνης. There is no hint here of Ezra's hesitation: ‫כי בשתי לשאול מן המלך חיל ופרשים לעזרנו מאויב‬ ‫" בדרך כי אמרנו למלך לאמר יד אלהינו על כל מבקשיו לטובה‬For I was ashamed to ask the king for a band of soldiers and horsemen to protect us against the enemy on our way; since we had told the king, The hand of our God is 75

for good upon all that seek him..." (Ezr 8:22). Above all, Nehemiah's mission is to build the city: ‫" אשר תשלחני אל עיר קברות אבתי ואבננה‬that you send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may rebuild ! i

There is a parallel in I Esd to this last verse (8:52, 53). so that the two approaches are maintained simultaneously in I Esd as in the canonical Ezr-Neh.

50

IEsdras

it" etc. (Neh 2:5), and similarly, the declared objective in Darius' letters is primarily to rebuild the city, 4:47 etc.

76

Two further details in Darius' letters may allude to Nehemiah, although not to Artaxerxes' letters. Darius' letters express concern for the needs of the priests and the Levites: έγραψεν δε και την χορηγίαν και την ίερατικήν στολήν, έν τίνα λατρεύουσιν έν αύτη. καΐ τ ο ι ς

Αευίταις

εγραψεν δούναι την χορηγίαν, 4:54, 55, a concern which is not present in the permits but recalls Nehemiah's constant efforts to ensure ‫מנאות‬ ‫" התורה לכהנים וללויס‬...the portions required by the law for the priests and for the Levites" (Neh 12:44); ‫ " ואדעה כי מניות הלוים לא נתנה‬I also found out that the portions of the Levites had not been given to them" (13:10); and also 12:47 ‫וכל ישראל בימי זרבבל ובימי נחמיה נתנים מניות המשרדים‬ ‫" והשערים‬And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel and in the days of Nehemiah gave the daily portions for the singers and the gatekeepers". In the Story of the Youths, the concern for the priests and Levites extends to the town guards as well: και πάσι τοις φρουρούσι τήν πόλιν, έγραψε δούναι αύτοις κλήρους και όψώνια, 4:56. The only mention of these persons in die canonical books occurs in Nehemiah's activities (Neh 4:16-17; 77

13:22; 1 1:19 ). One more point, though perhaps rather far-fetched, deserves mention. The first part of the story, describing the argument among the three youths as to the most powerful thing in the world, may have roots in Neh 2. Nehemiah, the king's cupbearer, though very much afraid, makes so bold as to approach the king with his request. The king responds favorably perhaps somewhat softened because of the wine and because of his consort at his side (Neh 2:1-6). Now it so happens that these are precisely the three subjects discussed by the youths: wine, royalty and womankind. In " Although the building of the city is also the central subject in the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes. 7

' Regarding those "who kept watch at the gates', see Zadok (1982), p. 298.

51

Composition

fact, not only does the story touch upon womankind in general, but the narrator, as an example, cites the actions of a certain woman, the king's consort (παλλακή) seated at his right, whose antics are tolerated by the king (4:28-31 )

n

Perhaps the similarity is only accidental, the author of

the Story of the Youths having assembled motifs from similar stories current in his time. Another point of contact with Neh may be found in I Esd 5:4-6, a passage most likely from the pen of whomever inserted the story into its present context and placed the list of returning exiles after it. The passage features a figure known to us only from Neh: Joiakim, the son of Jeshua (Neh

12:10): as he was a high priest, the time of his office is named for

him:...‫" ובימי יויקים היו כהנים ראשי האבות‬And in the days of Joiakim were priests, heads of fathers' houses..." (12:12); ‫ יוצדק‬ρ ‫אלה בימי יויקים בן ישוע‬ ‫" ובימי נחמיה הפחה ועזרא הכהן הסופר‬These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua son of Jozadak. and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest the scribe" (12:26). Now in I Esd 5:5 we find Joiakim mentioned along with the two leading figures, Zerubbabel and Jeshua: 01 iepets υίοι Φινεες υίοΰ Α α ρ ώ ν : 'Ιησούς ό τοδ Ίωσ‫׳‬6δ‫׳‬6κ του Σαραίου και Ί ω α κ ί μ ό τοϋ Ζοροβαβέλ τ ο υ Σαλαθιήλ. The text of I Esd, as it stands, is incomprehensible. First, we know of no Joiakim son of Zerubbabel. Second, it is not clear why the author used the plural, 'the priests', i f he meant to mention only one priest, Jeshua. Finally, Joiakim son of Jeshua is well known in the tradition of the period. The original

s

' Beyond the literary interest, one might say that the monarch most likely to fit such a picture would be Artaxerxes Mnemon (404-359 B.C.E.). See Schalit (1947), esp. pp.

126-127. Besides the women who figured in his life and dominated him, the

description of the king busy eating, drinking and sleeping (4:10) fits him, rather than die warrior Darius. See further below, pp. 84ff. The question is a literary one and has

no implications for the identification of the historical king; the Artaxerxes of

Nehemiah's time is generally identified as Artaxerxes I (465-421 B.C.E.). ‫ יי׳‬Stories of this genre were common, but one does not find the combination of wine, king, woman in this or any other order. See pp. 60ff.

52

I Esdras

text must have been as follows: ‫הכהנים בני פנחס בן אהרן ישוע בן יוצדק בן‬ ‫ וזרובבל בן שאלתיאל‬,‫" שריה ויויקים בנו‬The priests, sons of Phinehas son of Aaron: Jeshua son of Jozadak son of Seraiah and Joiakim his son, and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel", i.e., the people mentioned are the priests Jeshua and his son Joiakim, and the governor, Zerubbabel. 3. The text in 1 Esd 5:5 departs in one further respect from the tradition of the canonical books about Zerubbabel. It explicitly refers to Zerubbabel's ancestry, specifically his being a scion of the Davidic dynasty. In the canonical books we learn this explicitly only from 1 Chr 3:19; although there Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of Pedaiah, not Shealtiel. This proclamation of Zerubbabel's lineage endows him with a special status, as one finds in the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, see Hag 2:21-23 ‫ א ק ח ך זרבבל בן שאלתיאל עבדי נאם הי‬...‫ ביום ההוא‬...‫אמר אל זרבבל פ ח ת יהודה‬ ‫" ושמתיך כחותם כי בך בחרתי‬Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah... On that day..., I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel... and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you..."; Zech 3:8 ‫עבדי‬ ‫" צמח‬my servant the Branch"; and cf. Zech 6:12-13. Zerubbabel is referred to by his official title, 'governor of Judah', on the one hand, and as 'my servant', on the other. These titles are not mentioned in Ezr; nor is 80

Zerubbabel's ancestry. The situation in I Esd is otherwise. (a) In Darius' letter to Tattenai we read: ‫שבקו לעבידת בית אלהא דך פחת‬ ‫" יהודיא ולשבי יהודיא בית א ל ה א דך יבנון על אתרה‬Let the work on this house of God alone - the governor of the Jews - and [let] the elders of the Jews

Concerning the deliberate silence of the author of Ezr-Neh with regard to Zerubbabel's lineage and official title, see Japhet (1982), pp. 71 ff. Japhet notes that, as Jeshua's lineage and title are not mentioned either, the omissions need not necessarily be due to a desire to conceal the messianic expectations that were linked with Zerubbabel. Japhet suggests that the author had a tendency to shift the center of gravity of events from the leaders to the people, as done elsewhere in Chr. To my mind, however, this is a rather weak pretext for omitting any trace of the distinguished lineage and position of Jeshua and Zerubbabel.

53

Composition

rebuild this house of God on its site" (Ezr 6:7). The parallel text in I Esd 6:26 reads: έάσαι

8έ τ ο ν παΐδα του κυρίου Ζοροβαβέλ, έπαρχον δε

τ η ς Ι ο υ δ α ί α ς , και τούς πρεσβυτέρους των Ιουδαίων τον οΐκον του κυρίου εκείνον οικοδομεί ν επί του τόπου. This Greek may reflect a text such as ‫" שבקו לעבדא דאלהא זרבבל פ ח ת יהודיא‬Let the servant of God, Zerubbabel, governor of the Jews". The M T is difficult: the words 'the governor of (he Jews' seem to be detached from the rest of the verse. Although, it seems unlikely that an official Persian document would use the phrase 'servant of God'. The name 'Zerubbabel' may be explained as a late insertion, due either to the title 'servant of God' or to the title 'governor'. At any rate, Zerubbabel receives both titles in I Esd. (b) Zerubbabel is again referred to as governor later on in the same passage, and again only in I Esd. In Ezr 6:8-9, Darius promises that ‫גפקתא‬ ‫ ומה חשחן ובני תורין ודכרין ואמרין לעלון‬.‫תהוא מתיהבא לגבריא אלך די לא לבטלא‬ ‫" לאלה שמיא‬the cost is to be paid to these men in full and without delay from the royal revenue... And whatever is needed - young bulls, rams, or sheep for burnt offerings to the God of heaven". The parallel text in I Esd 6:28 reads: σύνταξιν δίδοσθαι τούτοις τ ο ι ς άνθρώποις εις θυσίας τω κυρίω, Ζοροβαβέλ έπάρχω, εις ταύρους και κριούς και άρνας. Our interest is primarily in the words ‫ ומה חשחן‬.‫" די לא לבטלא‬without delay. And whatever is needed", which are not represented in I Esd; instead, that part of the verse reads: Ζοροβαβέλ έπάρχω. These words disturb the syntax of the sentence and have therefore been explained as a wrongly placed gloss which should have come before the words τούτοις τ ο ι ς άνθρωποις, as in the previous verse cited above. There the letter instructed the recipients to leave Zerubbabel the governor and the elders of the Jews alone, while, here it tells them to give the expenses to these same persons. However, the fact that Ζοροβαβέλ έπάρχω replaces certain words in the M T implies that this was the original position of the Greek words. The relationship between the Greek and ,Aramaic words was brilliantly explained

54

I Esdras

by Bewer: he argues that the words ‫ די לא לבטלא‬have no parallel in I Esd; the words ‫ י מ ה חשחן‬, however, were translated by επαρκώς, their literal equivalent, which was corrupted at some stage of transmission to έπάρχω. The new reading inspired the addition of the name Zerubbabel, naturally by a Greek redactor. It is rather difficult to imagine a corruption in the Aramaic text - or a different Vorlage, for that matter. (c) Zerubbabel appears once more in I Esd without any parallel in the M T , and in the same episode. In Ezr 5:14, we read that Cyrus gave the Temple vessels ‫" לששבצר שמה די פ ח ה שמה‬to one whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor". In the parallel passage in I Esd 6:17, the vessels are given to Ζοροβαβέλ και Σαναβασσάρω TOJ έπάρχω.

81

I f this is a duplicate version, stemming from an attempt to

identify Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, the attempt could not have been made by whomever interpolated the Story of the Youths. That redactor made a clear distinction between Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, for he leaves Sheshbazzar in place in the account of the edict of Cyrus, I Esd 2:11, 14 (Ezr 1:8, 11), while first introducing Zerubbabel in the Story of the Youths. It would appear, therefore, that the addition of Zerubbabel at this point is a late interpolation, whether as an alternative to the name of Sheshbazzar or as an adjunct to the title 'governor', as we have explained 82

the previous cases.

As the Story of the Youths brought out the figure of Zerubbabel, it must have encouraged references to him in the above three passages of I Esd, whether in the source, in the first translation, or in a reworked version of the latter. In view of the many points of contact between the benefits granted Zerubbabel in the Story of the Youths and Nehemiah's activities, one " Unlike the previous references, only part of the manuscripts of I Esd feature the extended reading of I Esd that includes Zerubbabel. 8 2

Note that the Story of the Youths itself does not endow Zerubbabel with the title.

55

Composition

might suggest that the character of Zerubbabel was constructed in the Story of the Youths as a substitute for Nehemiah, and that Nehemiah's 85

memoirs were deliberately eliminated from the book. The relative weight assigned the central figures in the Restoration period in I Esd is surely not the same as in the Book of Ezr-Neh. Zerubbabel essentially takes Nehemiah's place. There is no inherent reason for the substitution. Zerubbabel's character, as reshaped by the Story of the Youths, is no different from that of Nehemiah. Both hold high office in the royal court, both are permitted to come to Jttdah out of the kindness of the foreign king's heart. Is it a question of lineage? After all Zerubbabel is a scion of the Davidic dynasty, the target of prophetic expectations; while Nehemiah obtained his position solely 4

from the Persian authorities." It is worth noticing, however, that Zerubbabel's lineage is not mentioned in the Story of the Youths but only in the transitional passage between it and the surrounding context (5:5). On the whole, I Esd clearly reveals here the common tendency of aggadic homilies to build up one character by borrowing traits from another. 4. The idea that one character has been ousted in favor of another makes good sense, given the strained relations among the central figures of the period - Sheshbazzar versus Zerubbabel, Ezra versus Nehemiah as evidenced by major difficulties encountered in the Book of Ezr-Neh and by post-biblical literature: (a) Ben Sira mentions Nehemiah, but not Ezra, in his 'Praise of the Fathers' (Sirach 49:1-3). (b) The Second Book of Maccabees develops the figure of Nehemiah but entirely ignores Ezra. In the second letter of the Jews of Jerusalem to 8 5

In contrast, Bohler (1997), pp. 307 ff, is convinced that Nehemiah's memoirs are a later addition not yet known to the author of the original edition of the book as preserved in I Esd.

8 4

Eskenazi, pp. 44-51, places much emphasis on this point. She is apparently unacquainted with Talshir (1984).

56

I Esdras

their brethren in Egypt, Nehemiah overshadows the other heroes of the Restoration period: ϊ ν α και αυτοί αγητε σκηνοπηγίας και του πυρός, δτε Ν ε ε μ ί α ς ό οίκοδομήσας τ ό τ ε ιερόν και τ ο θυσιαστήριον άνήνεγκεν θυσίας (2 Mace 1:18). The celebration of the Feast of Booths and the erection of both altar and Temple, attributed here to Nehemiah, are 'borrowed' from Zerubbabel's activities as described in Ezr 3. In the sequel, Nehemiah earns further glory as the hero of the story of the search for the hidden fire and the discovery of 'thick water' that burst into fire on the altar. The author in fact refers to 'the writings and memoirs of Nehemiah' and describes Nehemiah's establishment of a 'collection of books' which the Sages of the Talmudic period would have ascribed to Ezra: Έ ξ η γ ο ϋ ν τ υ δί και f.v ταϊς

ά ν α γ ρ α φ α ί ς και ί.ν τ ο ι ς ύ π ο μ ν η μ α τ ι σ μ ο ι ς

τ ο ί ς κ α τ ά τ ο ν Nee μιαν τ ά αυτά και ώς κ α τ α β α λ λ ό μ ε ν ο ς βιβλιοθήκην ε π ι σ υ ν ή γ α γ ο ν τά περί των β α σ ι λ έ ω ν βιβλία και π ρ ο φ η τ ώ ν και τ ά τοϋ Δ α υ ί δ και έ π κ ι τ ο λ ά ς βασιλέων περί α ν α θ ε μ ά τ ω ν (2 Mace 2:13).

It is not very likely that the authors of these works, in the 2nd century

B.C.K.,

were acquainted with only the memoirs of Nehemiah but

not with the historical chronicle that also included the story of Ezra. More probably, Nehemiah was more highly regarded at that time; alternatively, they may have had ideological reasons to suppress the memory of Ezra.

85

(c) Josephus, too, expands at length on Nehemiah's activities going beyond the biblical account. Nehemiah requests the king: "Do but graciously permit me to go there and raise up the wall and complete the building that remains to be done on the temple" (Ant. X I , §165, repeated in §169) - this in itself is reminiscent of the treatment of Zerubbabel and in contrast to the secretive nature of Nehemiah's early activities in the canonical book. Underlying Josephus' version of the events, which credits Nehemiah with having participated in the building of the Temple too, is the complex text of Neh 2:8. In I Esd, it is Zerubbabel who builds both Temple and city.

8 5

Sec Hofften (1975).

57

Composition

(d) Also important for our purposes is the Rabbinic midrash identifying Zerubbabel with Nehemiah on the basis of a popular etymology: ,‫׳זרבבל׳‬ ‫ חבליה שמר‬ρ ‫ ומה שמוז נחמיה‬.‫" שנזרע בבבל‬Zerubbabel - [so called] because he was conceived in Babylon. And what was his name? Nehemiah son of Hacaliah was his name". In other words, 'Zerubbabel' was a mere nickname of Nehemiah, so called because he was conceived in Babylon. Perhaps some such homily provided the impetus for the composition of I Esd; alternatively, the author might have followed a homily of his own granting Zerubbabel some of the virtues of Nehemiah and pushing the latter out of the picture - an opposite thrust to that of Ben Sira and 86

II Mace. The Rabbis are explicitly critical of Nehemiah, and this may be true of the author of I Esd as well. Notably, the figure of Ezra receives more emphasis in I Esd than in the canonical Ezr-Neh, although this emphasis may well be due to the translator: Ezra is described three times as the high priest, in 9:39, 40, 4 9 (Neh 8 : 1 , 2, 9 ) , while in the M T h e is merely 'Ezra the priest'. Similarly, Ezra's clothing (‫" כגדי ומעילי‬my garments and my mantle") is referred to in I Esd as sacred vestments: τά ιμάτια και τήι‫ ׳‬Ιεράν έσθήτα, 8:68, 7 0 (ΕΖΓ9:3,5).

In sum, it is probable that the author of I Esd omitted the story of Nehemiah from his narrative and instead built the history of the Restoration around the figures of Zerubbabel and Ezra.

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 93b: ,‫ בל מילי דעורא נחמיה בן ח כ ל י ה אמרינהו‬,‫מכדי‬ ‫ מפני‬...‫מפני ש ה ח ז י ק ט ו ב ה לעצמו‬... •‫ונחמיה בן חבליה מ א י ט ע מ א ל א איקרי ס י פ ר א על שמיה‬ ‫" שסיפר בגנותן של ראשונים‬Insofar as it was Nehemiah son of Hacaliah who uttered all the words of Ezra, why was his book not named for him?... Because he spoke vainly of himself... because he spoke disparagingly of his predecessors".

58

I Esdras

V. The Story of the Youths

The Story of the Youths is the high point of I Esd. It is the cause of at least some of the main discrepancies between I Esd and the canonical books. No doubt its inclusion was the reason for the structural changes in the unit Ezr 1-6. Possibly, it may also have influenced the omission of Nehemiah's life story from the book. For those who believe I Esd to be a fragment of a work that included all of Chr-Ezr-Neh, the Story of the Youths is simply a late interpolation that caused much confusion at one 87

point in a large-scale history. But if - as I am indeed arguing - I Esd as we have it today more or less preserves the original plan of the book, then the Story of the Youths was the catalyst for the formation of I Esd - its raison d'être. I Esd was created in order to interpolate the Story of the Youths into the story of the Restoration, and the whole book has no real existence without it.

88

It is clear from the previous sections that the Story of the Youths, in its present context, essentially upsets the logical course of events.

89

Consequently, it was most probably not written with that context in mind, rather as an independent literary unit which was only later inserted into

Torrey (1945), p. 396, offers the very attractive (though unacceptable) explanation that I Esd has preserved precisely that part of die large-scale work whose version of history deviated from what was commonly accepted. If this were true, 1 Esd would owe its very survival to the Story of the Youths. Gardner's (1986) article, entitled 'The purpose and date of I Esdras', makes almost no mention of the Story of the Youths. If the primary purpose of the book revolves around the doctrine of reward and punishment, the temple and the lessons of history, Gardner's article more apdy relates to Chr-Ezr-Neh, not 1 Esd. The promise held out by the ambitious title is not kept. The. comparison with 2 Mace is superficial and unconvincing; it certainly does not justify the conclusion that I Esd was composed 'in the time of the Maccabean Crisis'. Howorth (1893*), p. 106, is the only authority to argue that I E s d preserves an original version, including the position of the Story of the Youths.

Composition the plot of Ezr.

59 This conclusion is supported by the clearly demarcated

limits of the story and the self-sufficiency of the content. That is not to say that the story is a homogeneous unit: it, too, reveals various 'seams' indicating different stages of formation. However, these difficulties do not attest to the history of the Book of I Esd as a whole, but rather to the evolution of the story itself.

a. Composition of the Story of the Youths 1. The Scope of the Story The scope of the Story has been determined as 3:1-5:6, as this unit has no parallel in the canonical books. The story consists of two clear-cut parts: 3:1-4:41 and 4:42-63. The first part begins with a description of a feast held by Darius for the high-ranking officials of his kingdom. This feast gives the king's three bodyguards an opportunity to debate the question, 'What is the most powerful thing of all?' as a contest between the three, The style of the opening (3:1-16) recalls that of the Books of Esther and Daniel. Thereafter (3:17-4:41), the style changes, and the youths' speeches on the relative merits of wine, the king, womankind and truth are essentially discourses in a style reminiscent of wisdom literature. Zerubbabel. the youth found to be the wisest of the diree, enjoys the fruit of his victory in the second part. 4:42-63, where he requests - and receives - from the king letters to facilitate his return to Jerusalem and permit him to rebuild the city. Here the dominant style is a historiographical one, reminiscent of the Book of Ezr-Neh. The last section, 5:1-6, is not part of the story proper, but a connecting link between the story and the context, written in the style of the subsequent passage, parallel to Ezr 2, yet by a palpably different hand. Parts of the story as we have it today are well rooted in biblical literature and derive from there. That is the case in the first verses (3:1-16) This is the conclusion of Goodman's third chapter (1972).

60

I Esdras

and the last part (4:42-5:6). Nevertheless, even these sections possess features in common with extrabiblical literature, such as the Books of Maccabees. The section describing the contest among the youths carries the story far beyond its present framework.

2. The Genre

The point of departure for the youths' contest is the ancient universal question, 'What is the most powerful thing of all?' (3:5 ενα λόγον, 'ός υπερισχύσει). The background to the question is surely contemplation of the powerful elements of nature, as expressed at the beginning of the fourth discourse (on truth), toward the end of the whole cycle: Μ ε γ ά λ η ή γ ή , και {.!ψήλος ό ουρανός", και τ α χ ύ ς τω δρόμω ό ή λ ι ο ς , δτι σ τ ρ έ φ ε τ α ι ε υ τω κύκλω τ ο ύ ουρανού και π ά λ ι ν άποτρε'χει

εις

τ ο ν ε α υ τ ο ύ τ ό π ο ν iv pig ήμερα. The earth is great and the heavens are high and the sun rapidly runs its course around the heavens, returning to its place in a single day (4:34).'"

The various answers to this intriguing conundrum may include, besides the elemental forces of nature, a broad spectrum of components in innumerable combinations. To illustrate, let us consider a few sample answers from the literature of the East and from Rabbinical sources.

D. Flusser (oral communication, 1980) defined this passage as the earliest response known to him to the universal question, "What is the most powerful thing in the world?' For the content of the passage, cf. Eccl 1:4-7, from a different standpoint: ‫ הולך א ל דרום‬.‫ וזרח השמש ו ב א השמש ו א ל מקומו שואף זורח ח ו א שם‬.‫והארץ לעולם עומדת‬ ‫ כ ל הנחלים הלכים אל ה י ם ו ה י ם א<מו‬.‫ו ס ו ב ב אל צפון ס ו ב ב ס ב כ הולך הרוח על ס ב י ב ת י ו שב הרוח‬ ‫" מ ל א אל מ ק ו ם שהנחלים ה ל כ י ם ש ם ה ם שבים ללכת‬But the earth remains for ever. The sun rises and die sun goes down, and hastens to die place where it rises. The wind blows to the south, and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. A l l streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again".

Composition

61

An Indian folktale tells the story of a holy man who turns a mouse into a girl and raises her as his daughter. When she reaches the age of twelve, he tries to marry her off. He proposes that she marry the sun, but the girl does not consider it a worthy partner. Thereupon the man asks the sun, "who is superior to you?" to which the sun answers, "the cloud". So on the story goes: the cloud declares that the wind is superior, the wind 2

suggests the mountain, and the mountain finally suggests the mouse.''

A typical Ethiopian chain-proverb strings several components together as follows: iron is strong, but fire is stronger, fire is strong, but the clouds are stronger; clouds are strong, but the earth is stronger; the earth is strong, but man is stronger, man is strong, but sorrow is stronger; sorrow is strong, but wine is stronger; wine is strong, but sleep is stronger. And woman is stronger than them all.'

3

A Pehlevi text preserves an authentic Sassanid version of a literary type in which the framework story has three or four members of different nations expressing their views, the last word being that of the Persian: One day wise men from Byzantium and India, together with Adorbad son of Mahrasfend, were seated before the King of Kings. The king asked them, 'Who is the happiest person in the world?' The Byzantine replied, 'An unopposed ruler'. The Indian answered, 'One who is young and wealthy'. But Adorbad said, 'One who has fear neither in this world nor in the next'. The king then asked, 'Who is the tinhappiest person in the world?' (The Byzantine replied,...). The Indian said, 'One who is childless and destitute'. But Adorbad answered, 'Death is worst of all, after evil'*

4

;

(1949), pp. 304-309. I am indebted to Professor D. Flusser

9 3

Cited in Latin translation by Laqueur (1911), p. 172 note (a lengthy comment on

' S e e 77!« Panchatantra for this reference.

our story, though the article is devoted to a different subject). 4

' Snaked (1984) cites other examples of such tales in Arabic literature and argues for their Persian ancestry.

1 Esdras

62

A talmudic anecdote recounted in Bava Batra 1 Oa is very similar to the chain-proverb cited above, except for its punch-line: ‫ עשרה דברים‬:‫ ה ו א היה אומר‬...‫ ר״י אומר; גדולה צ ד ק ה ש מ ק ר ב ת א ת הגאולה‬.‫תניא‬ ‫ מים‬,‫ אור קשה‬.‫ אור מפעפעו‬,‫ ברזל מ ח ת כ ו ברזל קשה‬,‫ הר קשה‬.‫ק ש י ם נבראו בעולם‬ ‫ גוף‬,‫ רוח קשה‬.‫ רוח מפזרתן‬,‫ עבים קשים‬.‫ עבים ס ו ב ל י ם אותן‬,‫ מ י ם קשים‬.‫מכבי! אותו‬ ‫ ומיתה קשה‬.‫ שינה מפכחתו‬,‫ יין קשה‬.‫ יין מפיגו‬,‫ פחד קשה‬.‫ פ ח ד שוברו‬,‫ גוף קשה‬.‫סובלו‬ .‫ וצדקה תציל ממות‬:‫ וכתיב‬.‫מכולם‬ We have learned the following. R. Yose said: Great is charity, for it hastens the approach of redemption... He used to say, Ten hard things were created in the world. A mountain is hard, iron cuts it. Iron is hard, fire melts it. Fire is hard, water quenches it. Water is hard, clouds carry it. Clouds are hard, wind scatters them. Wind is hard, the body endures it. The body is hard, fear breaks it. Fear is hard, wine dispels it. Wine is hard, sleep sobers from it. And death is the hardest of all - but it is written, Charity delivers from death.

The same literary genre was used to answer the question, 'Who is worthy of being worshipped?' Probably the earliest source of such tales is a passage in Bereshit Rabba, Pisqa 38 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 363): ‫ אמר‬.‫ נסגוד לנורא‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ נסתיה ומסרתיה לנמרוד‬,‫ ולא ישמעו אזניך מפיך‬:‫אמר ליה‬ ‫ נסגוד לענני דטעני‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ אמר ליהל ונסגוד למיא‬.‫ נסגוד למייא דמטפין לנורא‬:‫ליה‬ ‫ ונסגוד‬:‫ נסגוד לרוחא דמובלי עננא א מ ר ליה‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ ונסגוד לעננא‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫מיא‬ ‫ מלין א ת משתעי ל א נסגוד‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ נסגוד לבר נשא ד ס ב י ל רוחא‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫לרוחא‬ .‫א ל א לאור הריני משליכך בו‬ Said [Abram to Terah]: Cannot your ears hear what your mouth is saying?! He [Terah] took him and delivered him to Nimrod. Said [Nimrod to Abramj, Let us worship fire. He said to him. Let us worship water, which quenches fire. He said to him, Well then, let us worship water. He said to him, Let us worship the clouds, which bear water. He said to him, Well then, let us worship the cloud. He said to him, Let us worship the wind, which moves the cloud. He said to him, Well then, let us worship the wind. He said to him, Let us worship man, who endures the wind. He said to him, You are talking nonsense! We shall worship only fire, behold. I am throwing you into it.

The same theme is featured in a late midrash, Ma'aseh Avraham, which provides a good typological example of the birth of such questions about 'the most powerful things':

Composition

63

‫ ה ת פ ל ל‬.‫ מי ברא שמים וארץ ואותי‬:‫ הרהר בלבו‬.‫ שלש ש מ ם יצא מן המערה‬p ‫כשהיה‬ ‫ כ ש ר א ה הירח‬.‫ ולערב שקע השמש במערב וזרחה ה ל מ ה במורח‬,‫כ ל היום כולו לשמש‬ ‫ זהו שברא ה ש מ י ם והארץ ואותי ו ה כ ו כ ב י ם הללו שריו‬:‫ אמר‬.‫ו ה כ ו כ ב י ם ס ב י ב הירח‬ ‫ אדון יש‬.‫ אין ביד אלו כח‬:‫ אמר‬.‫ ל ב ק ר שקע הירח במערב וזרח השמש במזרח‬...‫ועבדיו‬ .‫עליהם‬ When he was three years old he came out of the cave. He thought to himself. Who created the heavens and the earth and myself? A l l day long he prayed to the sun, but in the evening the sun sank in the west and the moon rose in (he east. When he saw the moon and the stars around (he moon he said, it must be the moon who created the heavens and the Earth and myself and those stars are his princes and servants... in the morning the moon sank in the west and the sun rose in the east. He said, These are powerless! Surely they have a Master!

95

In the much older Book of Jubilees the situation is presented without any hint of the puzzle motif, and the solution is known in advance: "And there came a thought into his mind, and he said, A l l the signs of the stars and all the signs of the Heavens and the moon - all are in the hands of the Lord - so why should I inquire further?!" (Jub 12:17). Finally, mention should be made of the dypno-sophist scene in the Letter of Aristeas (§§181-194). In the course of a seven-day feast, the king asks ten different questions each day mainly pertaining to wise government. He addresses his questions to various guests at the feast and is satisfied with all the answers. None of these tales resemble the. Story of the Youths, although grown from a similar seed; most of all, they fall short of that story in their development of the themes. They also differ from one another, both in framework and in presentation. The Persian texts and the Letter of Aristeas are concerned primarily to arrive at an outstanding answer, but they do not reject the other answers or explicitly present the last one as more powerful; its power is self-evident. This may be due to the topics treated, which are more philosophical in nature. Yet, even in the chain-proverb, whose salient feature is the ascending order of the statements, the closing statement Jcllinek (1938), I I , p. 118.

64

I Esdras

the greater power of womanhood - is not related to or inherently implied by any of the other links in the chain. On the contrary, the proverb owes its attraction to this element of unexpectedness and surprise. The sudden appearance of a theme that does not follow naturally from the argument and sometimes seems like an artificial leap to another plane is worthy of attention; that is the case with regard to death and evil in the Pehlevi text, or death and charity at the end of the talmudic text.

3. Wine - King - Women One of the major difficulties in the Story of the Youths is the relationship among the different themes. We may start with the question of the relationship among the three first themes - wine, king and woman. In this literary genre, one expects the first theme to be one whose power is 1

self-evident, * while the others surprise the listener. In the present case, there could have been no better opening than the king, since the framework places the entire event at the royal court. Surprisingly, however, the story begins with wine. The linkage between the themes is also puzzling. The first theme is wine, which is said to be 'powerful' because it muddles people's minds. The second is the king, whose power consists in his absolute rule over his subjects; there is no reference to the previous theme, wine. It is questionable whether the two themes can be compared at all - in what sense is the king more powerful than wine? The third theme is woman, or womanhood. While wine and royalty remain disconnected, women are compared with both king and wine; women are superior to both, as they give birth both to the king and to the vintners who manufacture the wine. The connection with wine, however, is artificial.

97

Women's sway over people and over

the king in particular is fully explained in the rest of the discourse. 9 6

See Laqueur (1911), p. 172 note. The chain-proverb that he quotes indeed begins with iron, whose power is obvious.

9 7

In the same way one might say that the king rules the vintners; there is no inherent connection.

Composition

65

Many scholars have questioned the logic underlying the order 'wine - king', suggesting that the text has inverted the original order. The source, they argue, presented the themes in the order: the king; wine, which prevails over the king; and women, who triumph over both. Apart from the logical argument, there are two details in the story that appear to favor the order 'wine - king'. First, the discussion of wine already refers to the king: "It reduces to the same level the mind of the king and the orphan, the mind of the slave and the mind of the freeman, the mind of the poor man and the mind of the rich man" (3:18). However, this reference to the king does not necessarily mean that the king preceded wine in some previous, differently structured version of the story. It is merely part of the description of wine's ability to rule out the differences in the minds of three opposing pairs: 'king - orphan', 'slave - freeman', 'poor man - rich man'. The king enjoys no advantage over the others. Even less indicative of a different order is the second mention of the king in the 'wine' speech: one effect of wine is to erase all memory of king and governor (3:20). Here, too, the king is merely part of the presentation of wine and there is no hint that he is inferior to wine. Nevertheless, the reference to the king in the discourse on wine, while royalty is the next theme to be discussed, indeed detracts from the literary merit of the story. Another possible indication that the story might have been differently constituted is a passage at the beginning of the discussion of womanhood. The speaker refers to the two previous themes, but in an order different from that in our present text, mentioning first the king and then wine: Is not the king great, are not men mighty, and is not wine powerful? But who now is their master?... Women have given birth to the king and all the people who rule over sea and land. They were born of them and they reared those who planted the vineyards from which comes wine (4:14-15).

This proof is convincing, especially when combined with the following argument, unlike the author of the passage on women, who knew the story in its previous version, whoever added the discussion of truth was already familiar with the present order, and wrote, "Wine is deceptive, the king is

66

I Esdras

deceptive, women are deceptive" (4:37) - first wine and only then the w

king.' However, this, too, is not conclusive proof, for the author might have referred to the two themes preceding womanhood in inverted order; the order is irrelevant in the discussion of women since there is no implication that wine is more powerful than the king and since women prevail over both. Moreover, there is an additional element here - 'people', and this may affect the order of the themes. Further support for the thesis that the original order was king-winewomen is allegedly found in Josippon." Josippon tells the whole Story of the Youths, first referring to the king's power and only then going on to wine. He begins as follows: ‫ אין‬:‫ ויכתב על המגילה לאמר‬,‫ ויפילו הגורל לאחד‬,‫ייכיאו א ת ק ס ת הסופר והמגילה‬ ‫ אין‬:‫ כתב‬,‫ ה ו א זרובבל‬,‫ והשלישי‬,‫ אין כיין ח ז ק כארץ‬:‫ והשני כתב‬,‫כ מ ל ך ח ז ק בארץ‬ .‫כ א ש ה ח ז ק בארץ‬ And they brought the scribe's inkstand and parchment and cast lots. One wrote on the parchment as follows: There is nothing so powerful on earth as the king; and the second wrote, There vs nothing so powerful on earth as wine; and the third, that is, Zerubbabcl, wrote, There is nothing so powerful on earth as woman (Josippon 6:47).

It does not seem likely that Josippon was drawing on some earlier source, such as a cycle of Zerubbabel stories, which had also been at the disposal of the author of I Esd. One doubts whether he had any sources at all other than those currently available, in particular for the episode of the youths. Far more probably, he reshaped the story on his own initiative.

100

In fact, he anticipated the order king-wine at the very beginning, when he wrote, describing the drunken king (here, too, there is no parallel in " Laqueur, ibid. " Sec Ncuman (1952). '* Flusser, 1 (1978), p. 37, writes: "However, Josippon rightly observed that wine also vanquishes the king and therefore inverted the order.... There is therefore• no substance to the arguments of some scholars... that Josippon preserved the original order, which had reached him from a source earlier than HI Esdras - that argument in itself is questionable, since Josippon did not use primary, early sources".

67

Composition

I Esd): ‫ויעמדו סביבות המלך עד עת תעורתו והמלך כבד בשנתו כי נשתכר ביין‬ ;

They stood around the king until he awoke; and the king slept heavily,

for he had been intoxicated by wine" (Josippon 6:37). Besides changing the order, he added an opening passage to the discussion of wine, linking it to the previous theme: ,‫ואף היין חזק מן המלך כי כל גבורת המלך א מ ת הוא‬ ‫ היין ימשול בו ויך לבו‬,‫" וכאשר ישתה‬And wine, too, is more powerful than the king, for all the king's valor is true, but when he drinks, wine rules him and diverts his heart" (Josippon 6:73-74). Moreover, the 'wine' speech is oriented around the king: Josippon explicitly speaks of the power of wine over the king, while I Esd is concerned with the power of wine over people in general. The king is indeed mentioned in the 'wine' speech of I Esd (3:18, see above), but the reference is incidental. Josippon is very consistent in this order. He even inverts the order in the discussion of truth, where our text of I Esd (4:37) lists the previous themes in the order wine-king: ...‫ והבל היין‬...‫" הבל המלך‬Vanity is the king... and vanity is wine..." (Jossipon 6:130).

101

There are further interventions of Josippon elsewhere

in the story. Thus, in his version, truth is not mentioned at the beginning of the third youth's address (see Jossipon 6:47, 59-60, contra I Esd 3:12, 4:13). but only at the end so as not to spoil the reader's surprise. Beyond this particular episode, indeed, Josippon not infrequently reworks his sources and rebuilds them. For example, he makes Zerubbabel Daniel's successor as adviser to the Persian king in order to create a 'historical' continuum. The literary superiority of the story in Josippon's version does not, therefore, testify to its authenticity. The order in the present text of I Esd, wine-king-women, is indeed rather perplexing, while the ascending order king-wine-women seems "" Contrary to the aforementioned suggestion, that the author of the discourse on truth was familiar with the present order of I Esd, this cannot be said of Josippon; though he seems to recognize the original order of king-wine, he is also acquainted with the expanded story, including truth, and in fact takes care to write king-wine, adhering to his own order, there ;is well.

1 Esdf as

68

preferable. Nevertheless, there is no real proof that the story ever existed in that order. More plausibly, the author of the Story of the Youths drew on different sources, which featured the themes wine/king/women solely or in different combinations in relation to one another or to yet other themes. In any case, these particular themes do not constitute a convincing threesome. 'King-wine' is a likely combination, as is 'king-women'. The tfiree together, however, whatever the order, form an artificial combination. Moreover, i f we assume that the author of the story in I Esd tampered with the original order, we must explain why he did so, and there is no obvious reason for him to place wine before the king.

102

Finally, it is noteworthy that the author develops the themes gradually, beginning with a brief discourse on wine, expanding somewhat with regard to the king and discussing women at greater length, l i t i s gradation provides yet another indication that he was constructing the story in the existing order. Aside from the wine theme, the discourses on the king and on womanhood seem convincingly related. The account of the king begins with a declaration of the greatness of men in general, as something selfevident: "Are not men incomparably strong, since they exercise control over land and sea and all things in them?" (4:2).

103

Although people in

general occupy a prominent place in the subsequent arguments as well, that does not necessarily imply that they were ever treated in a separate speech. The reference to their power at the beginning of the 'king' speech is characteristic of the author's style, introducing the central topic gradually (cf. the beginning of the discourse on truth, 4:34-35, and also 4:28). The king's power, then, is based on his rule over people: "He rules over them and has dominion over them and to everything he decrees they submit" m

He surely had no scruples about degrading the king in comparison with wine - for, as it is, he forthrightly criticizes the king and treats him with considerable contempt (esp. 4:10, 28-31),

! t b

For man's control of the universe cf. Gen 1:26, 28; Ps 8:6-9.

69

Composition

(4:3). Similarly, the discourse on womanhood begins with a proclamation of the greatness of the king and men in general, and the power of wine, too, is mentioned. Then comes the key question: Who has power over them, i f not women? (4:14). Women gave birth to the king and to people (4:15), and - as an addendum - to the planters of vines (4:16). Thus far the opening section; however, the vintners are not mentioned at all in the main body of the speech. There the youth speaks of woman's power over men (4:17-27), citing as the ultimate proof her power over the king (4:28-31). One cannot deny wine its place in the discourse on womanhood, but it plays a very ancillary and rather artificial role. Most of the stage is occupied by the king, men and women. In the discourse on truth, too, wine is denied a logical place alongside the king, women, people in general and all their actions (4:37). Wine, therefore, seems to be an extraneous theme, however it is woven into the story.

104

4. The Discourse on Women The texture of the discourse on women is also rather nonuniform. It reveals two different faces of womanhood. One is the beautiful woman, to whom men are attracted and for whom men are ready to give up practically everything. This is the face of woman that makes men toil, even steal and cheat for her sake, sometimes even bringing them to rack and ruin. The other face is the faithful wife, for whom man leaves his father and mother, to whom he cleaves for love. This last aspect of womanhood is uppermost in 4:20-21, 25 - passages thought to be an expansion of the original speech. It has been argued that the original narrative was devoted to the woman who dominates man, exploiting and taunting him (like wine). !iM

The extraneous nature of wine in this context is also brought out by the rather incongruous Greek adjective describing it: dfiiKos 6 olvos. If the source underlying a81K0s was ‫' הבל‬vanity', the word chosen by Josippon here, the predicate would not be so foreign to the subject in the source as it is in the translation. See below, n. 146.

70

I Esdras

Whoever placed this discourse on women in Zerubbabel's mouth tacked on evaluations of a different kind, in the spirit of Gen 2:24 ‫על כן יעזב איש‬ ‫" א ת אביו ו א ת אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לגשר אחד‬Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh". 105

The text thus presents a mixture of ideas from different areas. However, the distinction is not so clear-cut as to define the aforementioned verses as an accretion to an existing text. For indeed, the opening section of the discourse describes woman as prevailing over the king and over people in general, but she is also said to give birth to the king and to the people, cloth them, and care for their needs; they cannot live without her. The aspect of womanhood exalted in these verses is rather that of the wife-mother. Moreover, these verses belong to the framework, the skeleton of the story, that links the different themes together, and so. cannot be an accretion. In other words, whoever constructed the story had already merged the two faces of womanhood. The evolution of the story that emerges from the composition of the discourse on women accords with that implied by the previous discussion: our text was produced not by expanding and modifying an existing narrative, but by using existing raw materials with different subjects, pouring them into a new mold which did not always suit the constituents, whether because it altered the original intent (woman), or because it forced them into an incongruous relationship (wine-king-woman). 5. The Fourth Theme - Truth The skeleton of the story seems to be completely violated by the fourth theme - truth. There are only three youths (3:4), each of whom !l

° Zimmerman!! (1963/64), pp. 183f. points out the different orientation of vv. 20, 25. He suggests that this was due to a translator's error; the original text read ‫אנוגתה‬ (woman), but the Uanslator understood this as a noun with a pronominal suffix, meaning 'his wife'; however, the conceptual difference is not explained by this one slip.

Composition

71

undertakes to suggest one theme: Εϊπωμεν έκαστος ημών ενα λόγον (3:5). Subsequently, each youth pens his contribution (3:8), and their efforts are placed at the head of the king's bed for him to read and judge (3:9). Surprisingly, one has written about wine and the second about the king, but the third has taken up two themes - women and truth (3:12). Moreover, his discourse is explicitly introduced as being devoted to women and truth (4:13), and he indeed proceeds to present two separate speeches, one about women (4:14-32) and another about truth (4:34-40). In addition to the incongruity of three speakers versus four themes, there is a fundamental difference between the first three themes and truth, which is an abstract philosophical element. Scholars have concluded that truth is an addition, superimposed on an existing story - either when the story was assimilated into Persian culture, which reveres truth as a central notion,

106

or when its

wanderings brought it into Jewish circles, which were eager to grant Zerubbabel a worthy subject.

107

However, this generally accepted thesis

raises several objections: (1) The argument that the narrative involves an inner contradiction three youths, one theme each, but the third youth presents two themes - is based on interpreting eva λόγον (3:5) as a noun-number combination; yet here, εις, article.

or its hypothetical source in(N), may serve as the indefinite

li,s

(2) The argument that the connection between truth and the rest of the story is artificial, thus proving that it was added at a late stage, is unsound. Whoever wove truth into the narrative took considerable pains '* Sec Widengrcn (1956). p. 218; Grint/. (1963), pp. 141-143; Goodman (1972), pp. 204-209, cites parallels from Persian literature but docs not conclude that our story has a Persian origin. 107

Schalit (1947); Pohlmann (1980), pp. 42-45, cites parallels from biblical and apocryphal literature.

™ This is the case in 4:18 κταί ΐδωσιΐ' γ υ ν α ί κ α μίαν, "and they saw a woman"; see Torrey, p. 24.

72

I Esdras

to do so. It appears from the start as the third youth's second theme (3:12); and, the third youth himself does not 'forget' to mention it at the beginning of his discourse (4:13). When the discourse on women comes to an end there is an obvious pause, stressing the change of theme: "Then as the king and the magnates looked at one another, he proceeded to speak about the truth" (4:33). Moreover, the youth's words relate quite clearly to the previous themes. First he creates a tie to womanhood: "Men, are not women strong?" (4:34), as if to say: You see, 1 have been able to demonstrate that women prevail over everything suggested by the others, on the level of the discussion up to this point; however, all these things are trifling compared with the really great ones. Their triviality is clearly defined in 4:37, and truth is described in subsequent verses as the antithesis of all the previous themes. In other words, whoever wrote the discourse about truth was intensely aware of the preceding discourses. The 'fourth' discourse was not simply inserted into a given narrative, but carefully composed with consideration for the development of the story up to that point. In any ease, the very genre being used here would not easily allow a more explicit reference to truth in the discourses on the other themes. (3) As to the difference in the nature of the themes, one might argue, on the contrary, that that is precisely what qualifies truth for its special literary and ideational position in the story. As we have seen, the uniformity of the narrative is violated even in other, more 'primitive' literary genres devoted to the idea of the 'most powerful thing in the world'. Thus, the chain-proverb listing several things, each stronger than its predecessor, ends with 'and woman is stronger than them a l l ' ; although, the theme of 'woman' has absolutely nothing to do with any of the previous themes (iron, fire, etc.). Death, too, and of course evil, are quite unexpected in the Pehlevi text about people who have met happy or unhappy fates. Similarly, death and charity do not follow naturally on 'Ten hard things... created in the world' (mountain, iron, etc.) in our talmudic text. In all these cases.

73

Composition

the shift to a new plane is quite intentional. Perhaps the writer of the discourse about truth was out of touch with modern literary taste, but he was not violating ancient conventions. (4) The structure of three and four is by no means less expected, and in such narratives in particular, than a structure of three.

109

(5) Furthermore, a certain structural feature of the discourse on truth is closely reminiscent of the presentation of the other themes. It begins by praising something entirely different: "Great is the earth, high is heaven, and swift is the sun in its course", and only then is the superiority of truth mentioned (4:34-35). The same occurs in the speech about the king; the youth first speaks of the greatness of men in general, only then observing that the king rules them all (4:2-3)."° These points explain the intentions of the author in structuring his story as it is today. One is nevertheless left with the impression that the three first constituents of the story enjoyed some previous, independent life, before being joined by truth.

6. God of Truth The discourse on truth raises yet another difficulty. The acclamation of truth, so it is argued, has pagan overtones and the Jewish author had reservations about using it unmodified; he therefore twisted the text around so as to ensure that God be assigned His proper place as the real supreme 1

power." The youth describes truth as an eternal force, the source of all m

Cf. the examples cited by Shaked. which describe disputes between members of nations from (he four comers of the earth. See also Zakovich (1978), pp. 249-254.

m

For a similar style of discourse compare the opening verse of the speech about women (4:16) and the verse effecting the transition to the section stressing woman's hold over the king (v. 28). In those cases, however, the theme has already been mentioned and it is naturally referred to again in order to show mat the new theme is superior.

'" Rudolph, in the introduction to his commentary, p. V I ; Grinlz (1963), p. 143.

74

I Esdras

order in the universe and the embodiment of justice. The audience supports him at the end of the speech, crying, "Great is truth and incomparably strong" (4:41). There is no reason to involve any other power. Nevertheless, God is involved three times: in the opening verses, after the greatness of heaven, earth and the sun is mentioned, we read, ουχί μ έ γ α ς ος ταύτα 2

ποιεί "Is not he who does these things great?" (4:35 ) . " The next verse goes on to speak of truth as prevailing over all, but it ends with the words; και ούκ ε σ τ ί ν μ ε τ ' αύτοϋ άδικον ούθεν "and not a single injustice is 3

with him" (4:36), i.e., the pronoun refers to God and not to truth." Finally, at the end of the discourse, the text states: εύλογητός ό θεός τ η ς αληθείας "Blessed is the God of truth" (4:40). It is doubtful whether these 'divine intrusions' i n the text are all attributable to similar causes. One reason might be a misunderstanding on the translator's part (see below). There is also room for some variety at the level of transmission of the original text. For example, the pronoun referring to God in 4:36 could hardly be the result of a deliberate change meant to belittle the power of truth. The idea that "not a single injustice is with it [= truth]" is not inappropriate and there would be no reason for an editor / translator to take the trouble to make the sentence refer to God. There are several passages where such a change would be more necessary; cf., e.g., v. 40, where truth is credited with valor, kingship, government and greatness for all time - and there, too, a mere change of the pronominal suffix would have sufficed to enforce a reference to God. It is not inconceivable, therefore, that our text of v. 36 is accidental and that the original reading indeed referred to truth. The references to God at the beginning and, in particular, end of the discourse are a different matter. These references do indeed disturb the 113

This is of course not the case if the words in question refer not to God but to the sun; Rudolph, loc. cit.

m

One group of manuscripts reads here μ ε τ '

αυτής, referring

to truth.

Composition

75

dynamics of the discourse on truth. Nevertheless, they do not seem to be late additions intended to reorient the text away from truth and toward the divine power; it is not inconceivable that, for this author, it was quite natural to consider God and truth in the same breath. Perhaps what appears to modern minds as two themes - God and truth - was a single theme for the author, who intended to praise truth not as an independent, self-sufficient entity but as an attribute of divine government. Truth is described in the. terms of the same ideas and language used in the Bible to describe God. Even the opening verse, with its praise of the greatness of truth, which prevails over everything, sounds like an echo of the 'great and mighty God' (Jer 32:18). Further on, all the earth calls to 4

truth; the heavens bless it and all the 'works'" tremble before it; this recalls, say, Ps 19:2 ( I ) ‫" השמים מספרים כבוד אל ומעשה ידיו מגיד הרקיע‬The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament declares his handiwork": 103:22 ‫" ברכו ה׳ כל מעשיו‬Bless the Lord, all his works" (also 145:10; 148:2, 7); 104:31-32 ‫יהי כבוד ה׳ לעולם ישמח הי במעשיו המביט לארץ‬ ‫" ותרעד יגע בהרים ויעשנו‬May the glory of the Lord endure for ever, may the Lord rejoice in his works, who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke". Truth is never guilty of partiality or bribery ( I Esd 4:39) and its verdict is never unjust (v. 40; cf. v. 36); compare 2 Chr 19:7 ‫" כי אין עם ה׳ אלהינו עולה ומשא פנים ומקח שחד‬For there is no perversion of justice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking bribes". Truth exists and always prevails, living and governing forever (1 Esd 4:38) - compare Dan 6:27 ‫" א ל ה א ח י א וקים לעלמין‬He is the living God, enduring for ever". And, finally, truth possesses might and kingship and greatness for ever and ever; cf. 1 Chr 29:10-12 ‫ברוך א ת ה ה׳ אלהי‬ ...‫ לך ה׳ הממלכה‬...‫ לך ה׳ הגזלה והגבורה והתפארת והנצח וההוד‬...‫" ישראל‬Blessed art thou, O Lord, the God of Israel... Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty...; thine is the '

14

The 'works' of creation is a much more natural term if the subject is the deity.

76

IEsdras

kingdom...". Similar praise of the Lord's greatness and power is heard in Ps 145:13 ‫" מלכותך מלכות כל עלמי• וממשלתך בכל דור ודור‬Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endures throughout all generations". As in our narrative, the Bible, too, speaks of God as ‫ אל א מ ת‬the 'true God/God of truth' etc.; seeJer 10:10; Ps 19:10(9); 31:6 (5); 2 Chr 15:3. Also, truth is associated in the Bible with God's justice and eternity: ‫ואתה‬ ‫" צדיק על כל הבא עלינו כי א מ ת עשית ואנחנו הרשענו‬Yet thou hast been just in all that has come upon us, for thou hast dealt faithfully [= truthfully] and we have acted wickedly" (Neh 9:33); ‫והי א ל ה י • אמת הוא א ל ה י • חיים ומלך‬ ‫" עולם‬But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King"(Jerl0:10)."

5

It is also relevant here to mention the talmudic homily identifying God with truth: ‫ ש ה ו א‬:‫ א״ר בון‬. ‫ א מ ת‬:‫ רכי בכי כשם רבי ראובן‬,‫מ ה ו ח ו ת מ ו של הקדוש ברוך הוא‬ .‫ מ״ם באמצעותה‬.‫ אל׳׳ף רישיה דאלפא ביתא‬:‫ אמר ריש לקיש‬.‫א ל ה י ם חיים ומלך עולם‬ .‫ ואת אחרונים אני הוא‬...‫ לומר אני ה׳ ראשון‬.‫ת״ו בסופה‬ What is the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He? Rabbi Bebai [said] in the name of Rabbi Reuben: Truth. What is truth? Said R. Bun: That He is the living God and King of the universe. Said Resh Lakish: Akph is the first letter of the alphabet, mem is in the middle and tav at the end [= the three letters of ‫' א מ ת‬truth']. That is to say, I, the Lord, am the first..., and with the last, I am He (Palestinian Talmud, Sanhédrin 18a)."

6

The close resemblance to biblical phraseology indicates that, even i f the discourse on truth was originally part of a pagan or Persian narrative, the present version has been shaped by Jewish hands.

The ambivalent description of truth as an independent force, but nevertheless subordinate to God, is reminiscent of the account of wisdom in Prov 8-9 and Job 28. See Pfeifer (1967), p. 36. 1 , 6

See Wasserstein (1983), pp. 496-498.

Composition

77

7. The Historical Setting

The discourses on the various themes are inherently universal. In the Story of the Youths, however, they are delivered in a well-defined historical setting, even if considered in isolation from their present literary context. That this is the case is obvious on three counts, namely, 1) the identity of the king, 2) the identity of the third youth, and 3) the identity of the king's concubine. (a) The king is Darius, as stated in 3:1, 3, 7 (twice), 8. Thus, the identity of the king is firmly established in the opening verses. It is not probable that the failure to mention the king by name in the dispute itself testifies to the secondary nature of the name in the opening verses. It would be out of place to repeat the identification in the discourses themselves. Indeed, were the identification secondary, it would hardly have been repeated five times. At any rate, the presentation of the scene on a definite historical background is not exceptional - cf, e.g., the story in the Letter of Aristeas. (b) The identification of the third youth seems to be entirely disjointed from its context; omos IOTIV ZopofSafieX "he was Zerubbabel" (4:13) 7

that is a l l . " Nevertheless, this does not necessarily imply that the story ever subsisted in its present 'historical' context - Darius' court - without Zerubbabel. Furthermore, it is not surprising that only the main character, i.e., the victor in the contest, should be named, as in the Persian text quoted above (pp. 67-68). (c) Our story also identifies the king's concubine as 'Apame the daughter of Bartaces' (4:29). However, this particular lady cannot be "' The identification is quite unexpected in the context of I Esd, as Zerubbabe! has not yet been mentioned. The Syriac and Old Latin texts expand somewhat: "Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel from the tribe of Judah", clearly out of sensitivity to the problem raised by die laconic identification in I E s d . Josephus (Ant, X I , § § 3 1 - 3 2 ) and Josippon (6:29 ff.), each in his own way, took care to acquaint their readers with Zerubbabel in advance.

78

I Esdras

identified with any concrete historical personality at the court of Darius or. indeed, of any other king."* The presumption that the king in question is in fact Artaxerxes Mnemon is highly plausible (irrespective of the name of the concubine or of her father). The many stories about that king 9

provide an excellent backdrop for the description in our text." Nevertheless, one cannot assert that the Story of the Youths preserves this particular historical memory - or any historical memory at all.

120

Admittedly, the reference to Apame is very convincing from a literary point of view, occurring as it does at the climax of the discourse on women who rule even the king. The lively wording of the passage could well be an eye-witness report of the concubine's control of the king. If the narrative originally concerned a different king, the adaptation to Darius' reign were clearly done by someone who wished to construct the story around Zerubbabel. At any rate, whoever involved Zerubbabel in this wisdom-type debate also wrote the second part of the story, 4:42-5:6. That s

" Schalit (1947), based on a broad spectrum of historical data and assumptions piled up on one another (including some radical corruptions of names), reconstructs the characters on their historical background, as well as the history of the Uadition. He suggests that the original story was Indian: it reached Persia as a folktale about the power of wine, king and women. The story of Artaxerxes Mnemon's concubine Artakame - that was her original name, not Apame (known in the 3rd century B.C.E. as the name of several wives of Hellenistic rulers) - was added, as an example of woman's power, during the reign of that monarch. This Artakame was a member of a local ruling family in Phrygia whose name was Artakama (and that is the name underlying the corrupted name of Apame's father). The latter also carries the title 9aup.ao‫־‬Tou, which actually derives from the name of a place. G e p t o w i o v . named for its founder - the independent ruler of a region of southern Phrygia in the late 3rd century B . C E . When the story fell into Jewish hands the youth was identified as Zerubbabel and the discourse on truth was added. !i

* See above, n. 78.

' * Identification of anonymous figures is a typical feature of Midrash; see Heinemann (1950), p. 21. Compare the identification of Jeroboam's wife in the tradition of the L X X , 3Kgdms 12:24, §§g, k, 1; Talshir (1993), p. 209; the identification of Jaddua's wife in I Esd 5:38 ( E z r 2:61) may be a result of textual development rather than of tradition.

Composition

79

part of the story is well rooted in a pseudo-historical situation and has no independent subsistence otherwise. The youth is Zerubbabel and the king is Darius; together, they, as it were, determine certain historical developments associated exclusively with themselves.

8. Second Part of the Story 'The wisdom-type story, in its historical guise involving King Darius and the young Zerubbabel, leads into the second part of the narrative (4:42-5:6). This section is fully 'historical' and shows considerable similarity with the Book of Ezr-Neh (see pp. 65-66). Verse 42 is a transition to the sequel in which the victorious youth is told to ask for more than he had originally written: Αΐτησαι δ θέλεις

πλείω των γεγραμμένων, και,

δώσομεν σοι, ον τρόπον ευρέθης σοφώτερος. Torrey's theory that a large section of this unit is an original text omitted from the MT, which had filled the gap between Ezr 1 and Ezr 2 ,

1:1

is untenable. This is clearly indicated by the juxtaposition of city and temple, which is foreign to Ezr (see above, p. 40). The section is the peak of this Hellenistic-Jewish account of how a Jewish youth, the king's bodyguard, successfully secured an advantage for his people, thus joining the ranks of various figures in the Books of Nehemiah, Esdter, Daniel, Judith, 2 Mace, etc.'" As in some of these books, the framework in I Esd 12

is also one of legend. ' '‫ '־‬Torrey (1910), pp. 57ff. For a comprehensive and instructive response to Torrey see Bewcr (1919), pp. 18-26. Torrey reiterated his theory in 1945, p. 396. m

See Fischer (1904). for the far-reaching view that a single author was responsible for the final version of all these books, the goal of his work being to buttress national consciousness.

m

A historical echo - at least, in its reflection of the author's period - may be found in the king's decree ordering the Edomites to evacuate Jewish homes. However, one can hardly draw definite conclusions from this point. See Cook (1913), pp. 13-14.1 disagree with attempts to associate the decree with the situation described at the beginning of Neh. as claimed by Smith (1971), p. 127.

80

I Esdras In sum: there are a good many fissures or, better, seams in the Story

of the Youths, usually understood as indicating different layers of development. There are internal problems in the discourses on womanhood (the two faces of woman) and on truth (the 'intrusion' of God). The difficulties due to the integration of the different themes are readily visible, as in the questionable link between wine and the other themes and the treatment of two themes by a single disputant. The historical frame of the wisdom-type speeches also heightens uncertainties concerning the evolution of the narrative. Was the story written by a single author, despite the difficulties or did shifts occur in its form and content, as it was reworked and adapted to the version currently before us? Certain parts of the story presumably had previous 'lives' in other contexts. The themes treated are hardly new in the world of wisdom literature, neither is the narrative genre that the story represents. Nevertheless, 1 suspect that the 'evolutionary stages' seemingly implied by the various difficulties in the text are simply the outcome of conventional patterns in scholarly treatments of the history of traditions. We do not have sufficient proofs for the thesis that there once existed a more polished narrative devoted to king, wine and women, which fell victim to the efforts of some later editor who rearranged the material, tacked on the discussion of truth and placed it in a historical framework. Today, the history of the story is concealed behind a fairly homogeneous veil: the story of the contest reads as i f it were written precisely for this historical frame, for Zerubbabel. The Story of the Youths, then, was written for the sake of Zerubbabel, probably borrowing from extant wisdom-type material and from the Book of Ezr-Neh, in particular from Nehemiah's activities. It was not well integrated into the biblical material despite the redactor's efforts to adapt the context so as to suit the Story of the Youths.

81

Composition b. The Original Language of the Story of the Youths (In collaboration with David Talshir)

The aim of this section is to take another look at the question of the original language of the Story of the Three Youths which has come down to us in Greek alone. Scholarly opinion rarely goes beyond a general impression of the subject, and all of it takes its cue from Torrey,

124

who

contended that the story was translated from a Semitic-language original. His most commonly noted evidence is the frequent use, alien to the Greek language, of the word

TOTC

'then' which he identified as a reflection of

the common Aramaic word J H N . He further adduced several other phrases that pointed in the same direction, and therefore he concluded that the 25

original language of the story was Aramaic and not Hebrew.' Since that time, only Zimmermann has sought to continue in Torrey's path and to uncover other Aramaic constructions hiding behind the veil of Greek.'

26

The question on the agenda is, thus, twofold: was the story originally written in Greek, and, i f not - was it written in Aramaic or in Hebrew? At the basts of the problem is the difficulty in making the material yield 134

Naturally, those who argue that the story originated in Greek made do with a general impression, as though the burden of proof is not on them. So, for example: Fritzsche (1851). p. 1; Guthe (1900), p. 1. Jahn (1909), pp. 177-188. on the other hand, offered a methodologically curious reconstruction of the entire book into Hebrew, including those parts which already have an Aramaic (!) parallel in the MT. The evidence adduced by Torrey (1910) is noted on pp. 23-25, 50-56, 125-131. Those who followed in his footsteps quoted the major part of his words. See for example Bayer (1911), pp. 123ff: Walde (1913), pp. 119-120. and many others.

125

And more precisely, that most of the story was indeed Aramaic, with the exception of its last part (4:47 el seq.), which was largely Hebrew; a lost part of the Proto-MT which originally came between Ezr S and 2. But what could have been the logic in quoting the letters of the later kings in Aramaic and the letters of Cyrus in Hebrew (as Torrey would have it, when I Esd is speaking of Darius)? Nor would the content seem to justify the opinion that this part ever formed a bridge between E z r 1 and 2.

m

Most of Zimmermann's suggestions (1963/4), although interesting, are rather extreme.

82

I Esdras

negative evidence, such is to say, evidence that specific expressions could not possibly have been written in a given language. On the surface, there would seem to be little difficulty in deterrnining between the Greek language and a Semitic one; only, most claims of 'barbarisms' could be countered by dredging out evidence of nuance or syntax that prove the ostensible 'barbarism' to be legitimate usage of the Greek language. Even i f a parallel is not to be found in other Greek texts, one can always explain away the oddities as a personal idiosyncrasy on the part of the author, or attribute it to his cultural environment.

127

Indeed, the problem is not a minor one

seeing that the Greek we are dealing with is κοινή, probably influenced by the native languages, and that the milieu in which the story was created may have been a bilingual or trilingual society.

128

On the other hand, there is little point in hunting down constructions that could not possibly have been written in a Semitic language since these can always be attributed to the individuality of the translator. To cite one example, let us take the concept of φιλανθρωπία, which is a Greek concept par excellence and hard to imagine as having an Aramaic or Hebrew source. Yet i f its appearance in Addition Ε to Esther is adduced as evidence that this pericope was originally written in Greek, what happens when we find the term turning up in I Esd, and not in the Story of the Three Youths, but in the translated parts, 8:10 (Ezr 7:12)? The fact that it has no clear equivalent here makes little difference at all. What is important is that it appears in the translated material, and thus totally undermines the basis of the conclusion in relation to Esther. The same can be said for the attempt to determine between Hebrew and Aramaic; these two languages went side by side over a long period of time, and there can be no telling when and where the forms and constructions common to one language might have strayed into the other. 127

Rudolph (1949), pp. viii-ix. These are precisely the two sides of the approach adopted by Rudolph: first of all, this is Judeo-Greek. Secondly, every problem in the Greek text is necessarily rooted anywhere but in its Vorlage.

128

Barr (1989).

83

Composition

Together with this, it would seem that a more precise evaluation of the kind of Greek used in The Story of the Three Youths shows that it is translation-Greek, and observation of the kind of language which it reflects indeed sways the pendulum over to Aramaic.

1. The Kind of Greek Used in the Story The language of The Story of the Three Youths has been described more than once as natural and free-flowing. In order to study the kind of Greek in which the story is written, it is best to use criteria as precise as possible in examining what stands behind the outer facade. Is the story's language closer to original Greek or to translation-Greek? As a rule, i f the language of the story is compared with patterns of non-translation Greek and the Greek of the LXX, we find that it does not easily disengage itself from the latter. In order to set these assessments on a sound basis, we will employ the criteria established by the researchers of the New Testament language in their search after its Vorlage. Let us first recall a few phrases encumbering the fluency of the Greek in the story. Even i f these examples are not enough to give the work the indelible stamp of translation, their presence does call for explanation.

129

(a) The Semitic patterns of verba dicendi, such as: ευλογήσει;... λέγων (4:58); έφώνησεν και... εΐττον (4:41). Or, the use of

προς after verbs of

0

saying, even i f it is not a rarity in κοινή:" εΐπαν έ τ ε ρ ο ς προς τον έτερον (3:4). (b) The same is true for the place of the pronoun in 4:16 έξέθρεψαν αυτούς τους φυτεύοντας. " 1

See Mowinckel's criticism (1964) of Rudolph: "Es wäre jedoch merkwürdig, wenn es dem behaupteten griechischen Verfasser gelungen wäre, fast sämmtliche Anomalien des gesprochenen Judengriechisch in seine Erzählung zu unterbringen" (p. 11). ,3

"Turner (1976), p. 54.

'" Black (1967), pp. 96ff.

84

I Esdras (c) "Αρχειν, as an auxiliary verb meaning 'to begin', is not common 2

in Greek," yet in the story before us now, it reoccurs in the opening words of the youths: Και ήρξατο ό πρώτος... και εφη (3:17, and also in 4:1, 13,33). (d) The particle ίνα, which may possibly reflect the Aramaic n , ' " also reappears, and the fact that it recurs in adjacent verses may be evidence of over-adhesion to a non-Greek Vorlage: 4:46 δέομαι ουν ϊνα ποίησης. 4:47 και εγραψεν... ί ν α προπέμψωσιν. 4:50 και ϊνα ο ί 'Ιδουμάιοι άφιωσι. (e) Let us also mention here the use of ποιειν, which may possibly reflect a causative verb in Hebrew or Aramaic: ποιεί πλούσιας... ποιεί λαλείν (3:20); και έποίησεν αυτούς συναναβήναι (5:3).

134

The following data also testify to a Semitic construction, but in a more controlled way. (f) Substantial evidence for the existence of a Semitic Vorlage emerges from the position of the particle π ά ς , a secondary detail in itself, but one which assumes importance precisely for this reason. Of the four patterns in which the word can be used, the Story of the Youths shows a clear preference for the biblical patterns. The forms common to independentlywritten Greek, ό χ π ά ς or ό π ά ς χ, both in the singular and plural, are represented in the story only three times, as opposed to the forms of πάς χ and especially of π ά ς ό χ, generally in the plural, which appear some thirty times. There is a similar trend in certain parts of the New Testament,

135

unlike the trend increasingly evidenced by papyri beginning with the third century

B.C.E.,

in which a striking preference for the constructions of Classical 6

Greek becomes apparent." Η is not that the preferred constructions in the 132

Turner (1976), pp. 20, 46.

1

"Burney (1922), pp. 69ff.

1

" See Τ ο ν (1982), pp, 417-24.

1

55

' Turner(1976), p. 95. '* According to; Mayser (1934), II, 2, p. 102.

Composition

85

Story of the Youths are utterly impossible in Greek, for they do appear dozens of times in the papyri. Yet, had the story been written in Greek to begin with, we would have expected a different ratio between the various kinds of constructions. (g) The same trend emerges in the following table, which presents the ratio between main and subordinate verbs: New Testament Selected Papyri

137

- for every main verb: 0.4 subordinate verbs 138

- for every main verb: 0.7 subordinate verbs

Classical Greek

‫ ־‬for every main verb: 1.4 subordinate verbs

The Story of the Youths

- for every main verb: 0.5 subordinate verbs

The table shows that the story has more main verbs than subordinate verbs, indeed almost twice as many, which stands in contrast to the trend of Classical Greek. Is this not indicative of a Vorlage which prefers paratactic sentences? The above-noted relationships assume even more importance in view of the following considerations. First of all, while there is little discrepancy between the Greek of the story and independently-written Greek when compared with the papyri from the same time span, one cannot define the story's language simply as

KOLWJ,

for the distance between them is still a

long one and paved with Semitic stumbling blocks. We must also lay stress on an additional point arising from another aspect in the study of I Esd, namely, the study of the technique used by the translator in those parts where the Vorlage has come down to us. A n examination of his method reveals that he does not transmit the content together with the form, so to speak, but often exchanges a form of expression preferred in Hebrew and Aramaic for one more at home in the Greek language. I f this is the kind of translator responsible also for the Greek in the Story of the Youths, we would hardly expect to find a profound difference between the language of his translation and that of the Greek of his own day. For this 1

"Turner (1976), p. 51.

158

The findings from the papyri in this case are less conclusive due to their literary nature, which leaves little room for using complex constructions of main and sub­ ordinate sentences.

I Esdras

86

reason, these Semitic traces in the story are all the more significant and provide cogent support for our hypothesis that the story is indeed a translation. This assessment is well illustrated by the relation between the verbs in the main and subordinate sentences. In the translated parts, paratactic constructions are exchanged for hypotactic constructions thirty-five times, and we could further mention no fewer number of places in which a subordinate clause rejects other syntactical constructions. In view of this, the two‫־‬to-one ratio between main and subordinate verbs in the story becomes highly important as proof that we are dealing with translationGreek. (h) In Sollamo's tables of semi-prepositions, as she terms them, I Esd ranks high as a book in which it is difficult to find mistaken, un-Greek like use of prepositions. This is true for the book as a whole, both the story and the translated parts. Indeed, out of all the Apocrypha, I Esd takes its place at the bottom rungs of the ladder among those works which make the least use of prepositions derived from parts of the body. This is still not enough to draw it closer to the non-translated books,

140

1,9

but

it does give it a unique status among the other translations, and it shows its author as one who managed to free himself from the language of his Vorlage and to preserve the vitality of the target language.

141

The relatively authentic Greek appearance of the Story of the Youths does not, then, constitute an anomaly within the larger framework of lw

S o l l a m o ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 290 ff.

'* In I Esd there is one such preposition for every 16 verses, whereas in 2-4 Mace the ratio is 1:90, 1:277, 0:284, respectively. 141

Even so, every now and then the choice of prepositions is surprising, as in the use of urrep for VIKOV in 3:12 uwep Se noma

vucql ‫ ף‬dXf|8eta;or ets forrrXeif in 4:23

e'tj Tf|t/ (MXacKTai' rrXet‫׳‬1; in Greek, one sails U2 a given place, but sails in the. sea, or belter yet: r r k l i / ‫ף־ו‬1‫ י‬BdXaaaav, without any preposition at all. However, it is difficult to point with certainty to the nature of the original: Zimmermann (1963/4). p. 200, suggested that the translator found ‫ פרש ליטא‬before him, but no Aramaic usage such as this is documented; in Hebrew see the Palestinian Talmud Mo'ed Qatan, the beginning of chapter 3 (81:3) ‫" אסור לפרש ל י ם הגדול‬it is forbidden to sail at the big sea".

Composition

87

I Esd. Similar to the translated parts, the story may also owe its elegant Greek to the translator. In light of all die above, it is worth noting the internal relationships between the story and the translated parts of the book in connection with certain phenomena. Let us call into use here two of the criteria suggested by Martin.

142

(i) Martin examined the frequency of the preposition ev in relation to that of other prepositions, and reached the conclusion that in the original Greek material the latter appear far more frequently; whereas, in the translations, the opposite is true. Examination of this relationship in I Esd, in the Story of the Youths on the one hand, and in the translated parts on the other, reveals that the entire book stands firmly in the no-man's land between translated and original Greek.

!4i

(j) Another relation examined by Martin is the usage of καί versus that of 8e. He found that translated Greek has at least two και for every 8e; whereas, original Greek has significantly fewer καί than δε. In real samples, the curve in the L X X moves from six και for every δε (chapters from the L X X to Genesis and the Aramaic parts of Daniel), up to 343 καί for every 8έ (Theodotion for the Hebrew parts of Daniel). In contrast with this, in original Greek, there are 0.06 καί for every δέ (Polybius) and up to 0.39 καί for every δέ (the papyri). A quick glance at I Esd immediately 14

•'Martin

(1974), pp. 5ff.

Table of frequency of the different prepositions versus ev: Original Greek

I Esd

LXX

Translation

Story

ÔLCÎ

0.01-0.18

0.1

0.3

0.19-3.0

eis‫־‬ κατά

0.01-0.49

0.51

0.1

0.79-11.0

0.01-0.19

0.3

0.23

0.26-2.1

rrepi

0.05

0.41

Tipos

0.01-0.27 0.01-0.024

0.15

0.47

0.28-1.2 0.19-0.26

biro

0.01-0.07

0.06

Oil

0.13-0.51

In die translated parts of I Esd: 6td, περί, ϋττό, borders on the L X X , eis, τιράζ is in the middle ground, κατά borders on the original language. In the story: 6id, rrtpt borders on the original language, κατά, wpos, ύττό is in the middle ground, els borders on the L X X .

88

I Esdras

reveals that the entire book, both the story and the parts parallel to the MT, aligns itself firmly on the side of the L X X making more intensive use of και than 6e. In the translated parts the ratio is 7:1, while in the story this ratio climbs even higher - 8.5:1. This criterion, similar to that which we have examined up till now, shows that the Story of the Youths, like I Esd in its entirety, is closer to independent Greek than most books of the L X X , yet together with this, it still shows clear signs of belonging to the circle of translated books.

2. Traces of the Process of Translation We have sought to show that the language of the Vorlage left its imprint on the language of the story, and that this language is translationGreek. Let us now seek out the traces which the process of translation left in the story, both in the way the material was handled and in its language and content.

(a) Issues of Form (1) We first mention a verse whose form would seem to actually prove that the story is indeed a translation: οί σωματοφύλακες 01 φυλάσσοντες τό σώμα του βασιλέως (3:4). Regardless of the language of the Vorlage, this text is best explained as a double translation.

144

What

was the point of explaining the term 01 σωματοφύλακες by its literal components οί φυλάσσοντες το σώμα, i f not because of an original which was itself formed of separate parts? 144

145

The same can be said ί ο Γ ε π ε σ τ ά τ ο υ ν των ιερών έργων... If ρ ο σ τ ά τ α ι ς , 7:2. Even though its parallel in E z r 6:13 has no clear equivalent, this is probably nothing more than a double translation. Similar are double translations which repeat only one of the elements, e.g., Gen 39:21-23 ‫ ־־ שר בית ה ס ה ר‬άρχιδεσμοφύλαξ τοΰ δεσμωτηρίου.

145

We could not find an attested term in cither Hebrew or Aramaic to answer to the

89

Composition

(2) The appearance of different wording in a place where one might expect repetition can also testify to the transition between languages. In listing the high privileges due to be heaped upon the lad who was found to be wise, the youths reel out: και δεύτερος καθιεϊται Δαρείου (3:7). When the time comes for the King to pay off this debt, he says: και εχόμενός μου καθήστ! (4:42). That 4:42 fulfills the promise made in 3:7 we can easily learn from the other components common to these texts. The Vorlage must have used the same idiom in both places, whereas the translator conveyed the former in one way, and the latter in yet another. (3) Finally, there is a stylistic detail which suggests that the text originated in another language. 4:7-9 contains seven pairs of verbs. In six of them, the pair is comprised of two forms of the same verb, while a seventh makes use of two different verbs: ε ά ν είττη άποκτέννουσιν... άφεΐναι έρημοΰσιν...

άποκτεΐναι

άφίοιχπν... πατά£αι τύπτουσιν... έρημο^αι

οίκοδομήσαι

οίκοδομοϋσιν...

έκκόψαι

έκκόπτουσιν...

φυτεΰσαι φυτεύουσιν. The exception would seem to be the result of translation, rather than an original formulation.'

46

Greek terminus technicus σωματοψύλαξ. In I Sam 28:2 ‫ שמר לראשי‬is ingeniously rendered by άρχισωματοφύλαξ. The latter stands also for ‫ שמרי ה ס ף‬in Esth 2:21. In Josippon's version of our story he retranslates the Greek into ‫( שומרי ראש המלך‬Josippon 6:30. 35); however, there is no evidence for the use. of ‫ראש‬-‫ שומר‬in the technical meaning of 'bodyguard' before Josippon. See another list of verbs which is repeated with some variation in Greek in 4:23-24. There are a few other things which are tempting to believe but difficult to prove, such as the possibility of the intentional alliteration of ‫הבל‬-‫ עול‬in the discourse about truth (4:36-37). Or, the possible reflection of the phrase ‫( בגדי כבוד‬Sirach 6:29 - in Greek, Hebrew:

50:11;6:31;‫יכתם‬

‫ד‬

‫מ‬

,

and see L X X - I s a 52:1)

‫( דיקר‬cf. Onkelos for ‫ כ ת נ ו ת עור‬in Gen 4:21), divided between two hemistichoi in 4:17 και α ύ τ α ι π ο ι ο ϋ σ ι ν τάς

οτυλάς

τ ω ν ανθρώπων, και

αύται

ιτοιοϋσιν

5ό£αν TOIS άι‫׳‬θρώποι5. This may be true, even though the second hemistich should probably be understood literally (cf. Esth 1:20 ‫" וכל הנשים יתנו י ק ר לבעליהן‬all women will give honor to their husbands").

90

1 Esdras

(b) Linguistic Patterns The use of biblical phraseology is not necessarily the identifying mark of a translation, and yet, it is worth stressing that the language of the story does bear the biblical influence, as we see, for example, in: (1) 4:54 την ίερατικήν στολήν έν τίνι λατρεύουσιν έν α ύ τ η , cf. Ezek42:14 ‫" בגדיהם אשר ישרתו גהן‬their vestments in which they minister" (note the parroting of the Semitic relative clauses; also below). (2) 4:60 εύλογητός ει ος έδωκάς μοι σοφίαν και σοι ομολογώ δέσποτα των πάτερων, has a close parallel in Dan 2:23 ‫לך אלה אבהתי‬ 1"

‫מהודא ומשבח אנה די ח כ מ ת א וגבורתא יהבת לי‬

acknowledge and praise you,

Ο God of my fathers, you who have given me wisdom and power",

147

and

also in 1 Chr 29:10-12. (3) 4:63 τό ιερόν ού ώνομάσθη τό όνομα αύτου err' αύτω, cf. Jer 7:10 ‫" בבית הזה אשר נקרא שמי עליו‬in this house, which is called by my name", and elsewhere. (4) It is particularly worth noticing passages such as 3:6 και πορφύραν περιβαλέσθαι και έν χρυσώμασιν πι'νειν και έπ'ι χρυσω καθεύδειν και άρμα χρυσοχάλινον και κίδαριν βυσσίνην και μανιάκην περί τον τράχηλον, a verse which has an echo, in content and terminology, in Dan 5:7 ‫" ארגונא ילבש והמניכא די דהבא על צוארה‬shall be clothed in purple and wear a golden chain on his neck", and similar to this in Dan 5:16, 2 9 ) ,

m

and cf. alsoEsth 1:6-7:8:15. (5) Or, the list in 3:14 και σατράπας και στρατηγούς και τοπάρχας και ύπατους, which is identical with the L X X to Dan 3:2 ‫לאחשדרפניא‬ ‫ ס מ י א ופחותא אדרגזריא‬. While such examples demonstrate the proximity between the story and certain biblical passages, they also show that court phraseology which imbues the Greek with a dimension of authenticity, may nevertheless be the result of translation. And cf. also 4:40 with Dan 2:37; 7:14, 27. Admittedly, the word cognates N‫׳‬3K>n (originally Persian) - [laviaxfis (which, like pwoTi/os, is borrowed by the Greek from Aramaic), may mislead us into exaggerating the similarity between the texts,

91

Composition

Beyond the general similarity in linguistic pattern, a number of phrases foreign to Greek also stand out: these are best defined as loan-translations. (1) The first of these is και ούκ έ σ τ ι ν π α ρ ' αύτη λαμβάνειν πρόσωπα ούδε διάφορα (4:39). One cannot imagine a phrase such as λαμβάνειν πρόσωπα in Greek. It must have originated in the Hebrew ‫נשא‬ ‫ מ ש א פנים‬/ or the Aramaic ‫ מ ס ב אפין‬/ ‫ ; נסב‬cf. Deut 10:17 ‫לא ישא פנים ולא‬ ‫" יקח שחד‬who shows no favor and takes no bribe'".

149

The vitality of the

Aramaic expression emerges from its independent use i n the Aramaic translations.

110

Moreover, the first part of the sentence και ούκ ε σ τ ί ν

παρ' αύτη, and its parallel in v. 36 και ούκ εστίν μ ε τ ' αύτη also bear a Semitic stamp. The entire verse finds a close parallel in 2 Chr 19:7 ‫כי אין‬ ‫" עם הי אלהינו עולה ומשא פנים ומקח שחד‬for there is no injustice or favoritism or bribe-taking with the Lord our God". (2) 4:38, 40 ε ι ς τ ο ν αιώνα... ε ι ς τ ο ν αιώνα τού αιώνος... των πάντων αιώνων apparently reflect the common expressions of ‫לעולם‬, ‫לעולם ועד‬

151

152

and .‫כל עולמים‬

‫ *י‬Rudolph's comment (1949), p. ix, that the Semitic expression also needs a verb before διάφορα, that is ‫שחד‬, does not invalidate the former conclusion, even though there is a certain justice to his words. One might, after all, say that the lack of a second verb or nonwn aclionis before 'bribery' proves that we are dealing with a Greek who used Hebrew expressions with a free hand. Only, this shortened form is also proper usage m Hebrew and Aramaic, though not in Greek; the fact remains that λ α μ β ά ν ε ι ν πρόσωπα has no life in Greek. It should also be noted that a similar phenomenon is found in the translated parts, 1:46 (2 Chr 36:13) ‫ויקש א ת ערפו ויאמץ‬ ‫ ~ א ת לבבו‬σ κ λ ή ρ υ ν α ; αύτοΰ τ ο ν τ ρ ά χ η λ ο ν και τ ή ν καρδίαν α ύ τ ο ΰ : again two verbs are condensed into one. It is interesting that καλήν τώ

είδε ι

και τω κάλλει

is also a kind of abbreviated translation for an expression made up of a recurring element; see below, i W

Onketos changed the structure in Deut, ibid., to ‫ ;דלית קדמוהי מ ס ב אפיו‬Neophyti also translated Deut 1:17 ‫ ל א תכירו פנים במשפט‬with ‫ ;נסב א פ י ו‬and in the Pcshitta ‫נ ס ב ב א פ א‬ is common. Εις τόι‫ ׳‬αιώνα τ ο ϋ aiojvos is used for ‫ לעולם ועד‬in the literal translation of Psalms, but also in L X X - D a n 12:3 (see also Susanna 64).

152

‫ כ ל ע ל מ י ם‬is found in Ps 145:13, and, as for the Aramaic literature, in the Genesis

92

I Esdras (3) 4:18 καλήν τώ ε'ίδει και τώ κάλλει is an expression foreign to 1

Greek; " one may reasonably assume that this is a translator's solution to 4

an expression such as ",‫יפת תואר ויפת מראה‬ 155

.‫בחזווה‬

‫יאיה בריוה ושפירה‬

or its Aramaic counterpart

Though the Aramaic formulation exactly

corresponds to that of the Greek, a Hebrew Vorlage is as plausible, since other translators similarly replaced the constructs ‫יפת מראה‬/‫ יפת תואר‬with the dative case.

156

(4) Since there is no such phrase as 3:1 έποίησεν δοχήν, one doubts whether a Greek writer would have used it of his own accord. The one who used it belonged to the milieu of translators accustomed to rendering ‫( עשה משתה‬in Esther), or ‫( עבד לחם‬in Daniel) as ποιε‫׳‬11δοχήν.

(c) Issues of Content And finally, infelicities of content may well be the result of a mistake in translation; a phenomenon which is second to none in disclosing the fact that a work indeed originated in another language. (1) A mistake is most probably lurking behind 4:4 έάν δέ έξαποστεί λη αυτούς προς τούς πολεμίους, |3αδί£ουσιν και κατεργάζονται τά ορη και τ ά τ ε ί χ η και τούς πύργους. Why, after setting out against the royal enemies by command of the King, was it precisely the mountains which Ihey conquered, together with the walls and the towers? One possibility is that in the Vorlage, the walls and towers were linked to cities, and not to mountains. The mistake could have occurred in a text that was either Apocryphon 2:7 ‫( מלך כל ע ל מ י ס‬also common in Tobit). In independently written Greek, n a j would have been added to die singular. 153

Torrey (1910) p. 53, note c, defined it as a barbarism.

ISJ

The repeated ‫ ??ת‬is represented only once; see above, note 149.

155

This is the formulation e.g., in the Fragments of the Palestinian Targum to Gen 29:17 (MS E ) , see M . L . Klein (1986), p. 41; similarly in the rest of the Targumim.

m

Cf. Gen 29: !7; 1 Sam 25:3; Esth 2:7. I thank Prof. T. Muraoka for these references and considerations.

93

Composition Hebrew

57

'‫ערים‬-‫ הרים‬or Aramaic ‫ט י ר י א‬

558

or ‫קוריא־טוריא‬, but not in a Greek

‫נ‬w

one. (2) There is a striking contradiction in the course of the story between 3:3 KCU eKoiprjOr) Kai I^VTTVOS eyevero

and 3:13

icai 0 T 6 e£r)yep0T|.

First, we are told that the king was awake and then, that he awoke from his sleep. How did this come about? While it is possible that we have a combination of traditions here, a quite extreme solution in itself, it is also possible that the translator failed to understand his Vorlage in one of the texts: (a) A straightforward explanation would be that the Vorlage of 3:13 used the verb ‫קום‬, implying that the king rose, and the translator understood it to mean that he ‫טג‬2]&£ from his sleep. In support of this cf. Dan 6:19-20 ‫ושנתה נדת עלוהי באז־ין־ מלכא בשפרפרא יסוס בנגהא‬, "and his sleep fled from him. Then at the first light of dawn, he arose", (b) Or, 3:3 could have originally meant that the king fell asleep and the translator understood just the opposite. We may conjecture that he found something like ‫שנת המלך‬ ‫ נהיתה עליו‬before him - meaning, that sleep fell upon the king,

160

which he

took to mean that he was unable to sleep at all; cf. Dan 2:1 ‫ותתפעם רוחו‬ ‫" ושנתו נהיתה עליו‬his spirit was agitated, yet he was overcome by sleep" (others, however: "and he could not sleep"). Although this explanation is not solidly grounded in linguistic usage, it is more in harmony with the

1S

' As suggested by Kahuna. And cf. 2 Chr 14:6 ‫ויאמר ליהודה נבנה א ת הערים ה א ל ה ונסב‬ ‫" ח ו מ ה ומגדלים ד ל ת י ס ובריחים‬He said to Judah let us build up these cities and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars".

138

As suggested by Zimmermann (1963/4), p. 192.

I W

Interestingly enough, Josippon introduces a doublet: ‫ו א ם יצוום להפוך ערים יהפכו ו א ם‬ ‫" לחצוב הרים יחצבו ו א ם ל ה ר ו ס ח ו מ ו ת יהרוסו‬And if they command to overthrow the cities they will overthrow, and if to cut through mountains they will cut through, and if to destroy walls they will destroy" (Josippon 6:65-66).

160

Cf. 1 Sam 1:18 ‫פניה ל א היו ל ה עוד‬, such is to say, and her face did not fall. In the J

language of the Tanna im, we find the expression ‫יש שינה לפני‬, in the sense of 'to fall asleep', e.g., Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shira, 5 (Horowitz-Rabin, p. 134).

IEsdras

94

spirit of the story, seeing that the story is not based on the motif of insomnia, and indeed just the opposite; the contest is planned while the 1

king is sound asleep."' In addition, it is difficult to explain έξυπνος έ γ έ ν ε τ ο as anything but an exact reflection of a Semitic expression.

162

It becomes clear therefore - even without committing ourselves as to the exact nature of the Vorlage - that certain elements in the content of the Story of the Three Youths, as well as in its language and external design, prove that the work is indeed a translation.

3. Hebrew or Aramaic? Let us turn now to a closer examination o f the Vorlage in the attempt to discover whether its language was Hebrew or Aramaic. In the discussion below we shall have numerous occasions to refer to the important evidence brought by Torrey, but we shall attempt to refine and substantiate the evidence, and to round it out with material of our own.

163

What, then, was the language of the Vorlage from which the translator worked, Aramaic or Hebrew? Does the Greek text reflect linguistic patterns found in only one of these languages? Does the meaning of the text offer a clue to the original language? This is no easy task, i f only because it is difficult to make a Greek translation our yardstick for distinguishing between Hebrew and Aramaic. In addition to this, our knowledge of these languages is based on limited sources and lack of documentation for either of these languages may well be a matter of chance. Finally, the closeness between 161

Joxippon is very articulate on this point:‫" והמלך כ ב ד בשנתו כי נשתכר ביין‬and the king

162

This pattern of translation is even more striking in the above mentioned Dan 2:1 ical

was heavily asleep since he got drunk" (Josippon 6:35).

iiwi'os ο ύ τ ο ΰ eyevero 163

άπ' αύτοϋ.

Note that Torrey (1910) did not even attempt to show that Hebrew responds less to the text than Aramaic. So, for example, he suggested (p. 25) ‫ עם דנה‬as the original ιοπρί>? TOUTOLS (4:10, 41), on the basis of ‫ ז ה‬cw(Nch 5:13).

95

Composition

Hebrew and Aramaic makes it harder to choose decisively between them, given the fact that we are dealing with a bilingual society, and linguistic patterns conunon to one could easily become part and parcel of the other. Nonetheless, there are a few cases where it seems that the Greek text before us can be well explained on the basis of an Aramaic Vorlage, while a Hebrew text would not fit the bill. On the other hand, it is hard to find evidence pointing exclusively to a Hebrew Vorlage alone, such is to say, features of language or content that could not also be explained on the basis of Aramaic.

(a) Linguistic Patterns

A few linguistic patterns reflect the Official and Middle Aramaic, but have no counterpart in Hebrew. (1) Let us first mention the conjunction noted by Torrey (pp. 23-24). and which is frequently repeated in the literature: the high frequency of the word Tcrre in the Story of the Youths - 3:4, 8: 4:33, 41 (twice), 42,43, 47, as in the rest of 1 Esd (7 times). This is not characteristic of Greek, and its presence can only be explained through reference to the common Aramaic 164

conjunction in Official Aramaic: p‫־‬TN( .(-‫־‬ ( 4 : 3 6(2CTeifcTouKCU Tpepei. This is practically a carbon copy of one of the Aramaic expressions: T^tm yw, ‫־־‬:‫־‬rvn

see Dan 5:19; 6:27,

yiyn in the Aramaic Book of Enoch, 4QEn 2 I I , 30. d

166

16i

or

In Aramaic,

therefore, this is a common expression, whereas Hebrew has nothing like

The Hebrew parallel ‫ אז‬is not frequently used as a conjunction, and the same is tine for the later ‫ בכן‬. And in reverse order: ‫!־אליו ויאעין‬, Genesis Apocryphon 3, Beyer, p. 166. c

Milik, p. 223, and cf. also 4 Q E n 4 , 1, Milik, p. 204. The closest expression which we found for this is:‫( פחדו ורגזו‬Jcr 33:9).

96

I Esdras (3) 4:39 τά δίκαια ποιεΐ από πάντων των αδίκων. In Biblical

Hebrew, the act of wreaking vengeance (‫שפטים‬/‫ )עשה משפט‬is expressed with the preposition beth and not with mem, as in Exod 12:12 ‫ובכל אלהי‬ ‫" מצרים אעשה שפטים‬and I will execute judgements against all the gods of Egypt".

168

Torrey (p. 25) very astutely indicated the use of the preposition

alien to Greek, employed here by the Greek translator in an uncharacteristic moment of distraction, and suggested that the Greek originated in the Aramaic expression ‫( דינה להוא מתעבד מנה‬Ezr 7:26).

169

This is further bom

out by texts which were subsequently discovered. See the Aramaic Book r

of Enoch, 4QEn X X I I , 3: ‫דינא רבא די מנהון יתעבד‬, and the Bar-Kosiba letters, n

1

7

0

.

‫״‬

1: ‫מנכן פרענותא תתעבד‬

reflection of the formulations in Qui, such as ‫ עבד לי דין מנה‬in the Genesis Apocryphon 20:14 (similarly Onkelos to Deut 33:7), and note the striking 8

resemblance between our text and 4QEn l IV, 16: ‫למעבד דין קשוט מן כול‬ ‫רשיעין‬. ( 4 : 4 2(4ευρέθης σοφώτερος. Biblical Hebrew does not use ‫נמצא‬ 'found to be' in diis manner, as an auxiliary verb which acts as a copula in the sentence,

171

but Biblical Aramaic does show this kind of usage; see

Dan 5:27 ‫" השתכרות חסיר‬found wanting". 168

Cf. also Num 33:4, Ps 149:19. See, however, Ps 119:84, where the preposition has presumably been modified by the translator: ‫ >־ מתי תעשה ברדפי משפט‬π ό τ ε π ο ι ή σ ε ι ς εκ

τ ω ν κ α τ α δ ι ω κ ό ν τ ω ν με κρίσιν

"when will You bring my persecutors to

judgement"; cf. also Judg 11:36 ‫" אחרי אשר עשה לך ה׳ נ ק מ ו ת מאויביך‬seeing that the Lord has vindicated you against your enemies". I thank Prof. T . Muraoka for these references. These are hardly as straightforward an explanation as the Aramaic phrase. 16

* There, however, our translator found an adequate verb which replaces the entire

Aramaic phrase, i.e., κολαθήσυνται, simply: they should be punished, 8:24. ™ Kutseher (1977), pp. ‫לח‬, ‫מ‬. There seems to be a similar use in late Biblical Hebrew, Esth 6:2 ‫וימצא כ ת ו ב‬, also Dan 12:1, but the meaning of 'finding' is still apparent, as Neh 7:5 clearly shows. In Rabbinic Hebrew, the use of ‫ נמצא‬as an auxiliary verb is already common, possibly borrowed from Aramaic; see Sarfatti (1987), pp. 227-231.

T

Composition

97

The above-noted idioms stand out clearly in the translation, and constitute striking evidence of its reliance on Aramaic. These examples are little more than the tip of the iceberg, although, the others are less clear. (5) 4:6 άναφέρουσι τους φόρους. The word used to signify 'tax' in Official Aramaic is ‫( מ)נ(דה‬Ezr 4:13, 20; 6:8; 7:24), and in its wake the Hebrew ‫( מ ד ה‬Neh 5:4). Could this have been the term which stood before the translator, who chose to render it in the plural φόροι ? This might be the case, considering the custom in I I Esd. Only, in I Esd ‫דה‬0)‫ מ‬is consistently rendered as φορολογία

m

Hence, it is difficult to assume that ‫ מ)נ(דה‬stood

at the basis of φόροι. Moreover, the verb chosen here - άναφέρειν, is never used with φορολογία.

175

Instead, the verbs of δούναι and επιβάλλει ν

are used, in keeping with ‫יהב‬/‫ נתן‬and ‫ רמי‬of the Aramaic original; whereas, άναφέρειν is the equivalent of80)‫להעלות‬

times). It seems, therefore, that

άναφέρουσι τους φόρους is a reflection of a different phrase. It betrays its Aramaic original in three different ways. 1) In Biblical Hebrew, ‫ מ ס‬like ‫ מ ס עובד‬means forced labor, corvée; 2) it is generally used in the singular;

174

3) he who is said ‫' להעלות מס‬to raise the corvée', is the ruler who imposes the corvée. From the Targumim, however, we learn that the Aramaic usage was different: 1 ) ‫ מס‬was apparently not limited to corvée, but meant 1

1

tax in general; '' 2) the word is always in the plural (

3;(‫)מסין‬and he who ft

raises the taxes is not the recipient of the tax but the one who pays it." To 172

Sec 2:18; 6:27; 8:22 (Ezr 4:13; 6:8; 7:24) and cf. 2:23 (Ezr 4:20). We would usually expect the standard φέρειν (or another verb such as ά π ά γ ε ι ν ) on the subject of raising taxes, only άναφερειν presumably lakes the place of a causative verb in ihe source before him.

m

In the phrase ‫ שרי מ ס י ס‬in Exod 1:11, the plural ‫ שרי‬drags the plural of ‫ מ ס‬along after

1 , 5

As testified by the Palestinian Targumim to Gen 49:15.

it, as in ‫לוחות א מ י ם‬, frequent in the Torah.

176

The following are telling examples. Deut 20: ! 1 ‫" יהיו לך ל מ ס‬they shall serve you at forced labor" was transmitted in the Jewish Targumim as ‫יהוו לך ל מ ס ק י מסין‬: (1) ‫מ ס‬ was changed to ‫ מסין‬and (2) the ‫ מ ס ק י מסין‬are none other than those who must pay

98

I Esdras

be sure, the Aramaic evidence is not derived from independently written literature, but in the Targumic literature the phrase is the translator's own formulation, independent of the exact wording of their source. Our text in I Esd is speaking about the taxes on agricultural products which the subjects owed the king rather than forced labor, and it therefore reflects in form 177

and content an expression such as .‫מ)נ(סקיןמסין‬ Let us briefly mention a few other such phrases: (6) 4:5 και τ ά άλλα π ά ν τ α may reflect the Aramaic ‫ואחרן כלא‬. Support for this is found in the letter of the Jews of Elphantine to Bagohi (Cowley 30:11 -12).

178

The phrase reoccurs in 6:4 (Ezr 5:3), without a

direct parallel in the MT. (7) 4:10, 31 προς τούτοις. One wonders whether this is not a literal rendering of ‫לקבל דנה‬, or the more frequent ‫כל קבל דנה‬. The real significance of the Aramaic is 'at that time', 'then'; and as such fits the context.

179

(8) 4:22 δεΐ υμάς ·γνώναι. Torrey (ρ, 53) suggested that the translator chose this syntactical construction since the sentence hinged upon the Aramaic ‫ ;אריך‬cf. Ezr 4:14 ‫" לא אריך לנא למחזא‬and it is not right that we should see".

it. The author of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets was forced to change 1 Kgs 5:27 ‫ ויעל המלך שלמה מ ס מ כ ל ישראל‬to: ‫ומני מ ל כ א שלמה מ ס ק י מסין‬, such is to say, (1) he changed ‫ מ ס‬into 2) ,‫ )מסיו‬he supplies a verb not in his Vorlage (‫ )ומני‬and, once again, (3) the ‫ מ ס ק י מסין‬are those who provide the taxes. ‫ מעלי מסין‬mentioned in the Amoraic literature (Palestinian Talmud, Demai 22d: Shevi'it 36c) is apparently a loan-translation of the Aramaic ‫ מ ס ק י מסין‬, since the Aramaic evidence precedes this by hundreds of years. The letter reads: ‫ואחרן זי ת מ ה הוה כ ל א באשה שרפו‬, which is generally translated as: "and (every thing) else, that was there, all of it they set on fire" (as if ‫ אחרן‬were an adj. and used elliptically, without the noun); however, it might have been used as a substantive, which acquired, through metonymy, the meaning of 'everything else'; cf. Dan 2:11; Kraeling 10:10. On Torrey's suggestions see above, note 163.

Composition

99

(9) Before turning to other matters, let us note the position of the verb at the end of the sentence, one of the trademarks of Official Aramaic.

IS0

There are several places in the story which would appear to testify to this Aramaic usage: 3:6; 4:42,43, 44, 46, 50.

(b) Issues of Content Often, baffling elements in the content of the story can be explained against the background of a misunderstood Aramaic Vorlage. (1) 3:1 otKoyevels. In the beginning of the story mention is made of the guests summoned to the king's banquet, and among these the oi.K‫׳‬0ye‫׳‬1€ts receive a place of honor. The meaning of the Greek word is 'housebom slaves' which is highly incongmous under the circumstances. It seems that this infelicity is nothing more than a translation of ‫בני ביתא‬. In Official and Middle Aramaic, ‫ בר ביתא‬is a high-ranking official in the royal court:

181

whereas, in Hebrew. ‫ בן בית‬is a slave that was born into the house of his master. m

182

The translator must have found ‫ בר ביתא‬in his Vorlage and made

Official Aramaic inherited it from Akkadian, which in turn inherited it from Sumerian; cf. Segert, p. 422. It is worth noting that this linguistic usage, alien to the Semitic languages, disappeared from the dialects which took the place of Official Aramaic; see the discussion on pp. 223ff.

181

The list may possibly name the high-ranking officials according to their hierarchical importance, with the 01K0ye‫׳‬1ti> standing at the top. Indeed, ‫ בר ביתא‬is the title of Arsham, one of the senior officials of the Persian government (sec Driver, letters 1. 2, 3, 5) and cf. Beyer's reading of the Genesis Apocryphon 19:24 ‫תלונא גבריו מן‬ ‫ן[ מן בני ביתא די פרעו צען‬1‫"' רברבי מצרי‬three men from among the nobles of Egypt of the princes of Pharaoh of Zoan", Bayer, p. 173; the text, however, is dubious. It is hard to accept Rundgren's position, which attributes the Aramaic meaning to the Greek on the basis of the word's usage here.

'

s2

In Gen 15:2-3 ‫ בן ביתי‬is a synonym for ‫ ;בן מ ש ק ביתי‬unfortunately the meaning of the latter is dubious, but see Eccl 2:7 ‫" קניתי עבדים ושפחות ובני בית היה לי‬I bought male and female, slaves, and I acquired stewards". Zimmermann (1963/4), p. 199, was imprecise in this matter.

100

IEsdras

a literal translation of its different components; only, it is very out of context here,

183

(2) 4:14 is something of a locus classicus to any discussion of this kind: ού μ έ γ α ς ό βασιλ€ύς και

πολλοί οί άνθρωποι και

ό

olvos

ισχύει. The usual meaning of πολλοί ill accords with the context, since one would expect the emphasis to fall on power, magnitude, and not on number. Rudolph (p. ix), as is his wont, plowed through the sources and found that the Greek word also carries a nuance of 'strong'. It is doubtful, however, whether a Greek author would have settled precisely on this word, when its primary meaning is 'numerous'. This is evidently nothing but a mistranslation. Torrey (p. 24) claims that the translator erred in translating the Aramaic word ‫' רברבין‬great men, nobles' in the sense of its Hebrew counterpart ‫' ר מ ס‬numerous'. On the other hand, i f we assume that the translator worked from an Aramaic text such as: ‫ שגיאין בני אנשא‬everything slips into place, since ‫ שגיאץ‬in Aramaic has connotations of both number,

184

1

5

and magnitude. * The translator chose the first of these

meanings, when, in fact, he should have chosen the second. (3) One wonders whether Zimmermann was correct in suggesting (pp. 187-188) that the ambiguous a n in Aramaic led to a mistranslation in ;

4:27, since the translator preferred the nuance of 'to sin' over that of to owe'. The latter nuance seems to be no more in keeping with the verbs alongside it than the first. (4) Another mistranslation much better explained against the background of Aramaic usage than against that of Hebrew can also be found in 4:49ff. Time and again, the Greek text gives the impression that the king is busy dashing off letters to the Judaeans about to leave his

m

Admittedly, the term expected 10 underlie the title OIKOVO^OS in 4:47, 49 is also -‫כר‬ ‫בית‬. In this case, it is not quite clear why he introduced an unsuitable term here.

184

185

Cf.‫" שנין שגיאן‬many years", Ezr 5:11. Cf. ‫" צ ל ם ח ד שגיא‬a big statue", Dan 2:31; ‫" מתנן ר ב שגיאן‬many great gifts", ibid., v. 48; and a similar usage in the Palestinian Targumim, e.g., to Gen 4:13.

101

Composition

kingdom, the priests, the Levites and the guards of the city. Since ‫על‬ means 'to' as well as 'about', the translator erred in thinking that the king's letter was addressed to the Judaeans etc. In fact, the documents were designated for the authorities in Coelesyria and Phoenicia, as written in v. 48, and their content was about the Judaeans etc. The ambiguity of the word ‫ על‬is daily fare of Official Aramaic, but neither, it must be admitted, is it lacking in Hebrew (cf. Ezr 4: 6, 7). (5) 4:36 και ούκ εστίν μ ε τ ' αυτού άδικον ουδέν; 4:40 εύλογητός ό θεός τ η ς αληθείας. Many have noted the difficulty presented by the unexpected mention of God in the discourse about truth, 4:35, 36, 40. If we understand v. 35 ούχ'ι μέγας δ ς ταύτα ποιεί as a continuation of the discourse on the subject of the sun and not as a definition of God, who is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, the fact that God does appear in vv. 36 and 40 can be explained as a mistranslation of the Aramaic Vorlage. Torrey (pp. 55-56) suggested a solution in this direction but contended that the translator's change was tendentious, and that he sought to glorify God in a speech which praised the superiority of the creation without mention of the creator. Only, had Torrey taken into account dte masculine 186

gender of the Aramaic ,‫קושטא‬, ‫קשוט‬

none of this would have been

necessary. It is precisely because of the feminine gender of ‫ אמת‬and of αλήθεια, and the masculine gender of ‫קשוט‬, that the Aramaic original of the story is revealed. Verse 36 revolves around the subject of truth, and it is thus quite reasonable for its ending to do just the same: και ούκ εστίν μ ε τ ' αυτού άδικον ουδέν, that is, ‫" ולא איתי עמה כל עולה‬it [the truth] has no iniquity.'*" In the Vorlage, the pronoun (‫ )עמה‬devolved not with reference 186

Thus in all the Aramaic dialects ‫קושטא‬, ‫ קשוט‬is masculine; and even in Syriac, in which the form is ‫( קישתא‬through dissimulation of the emphatic consonants) and c

the taw could have been understood as denoting the feminine - Bar A l i says explicitly: "‫ ודכרגאית ו^ו נקבאית‬- masculine and not feminine". Payne Smith (1901), p. 3773. m

‫ עולה‬is the word contrasting ‫ קושטא‬both in the Aramaic Book of Enoch, see 4 Q E n 1 V, 3, Milik, p. 189: ‫ וודתחוא נ[צבת ק ו ש ט א‬...) ‫" ואבו־ונ עולה נע‬and destroy iniquity... and let the plant of righteousnc*ss appear", and in Syriac (Payne Smith, ibid.).

102

IEsdras

to God but to ‫ ;קשוט‬the translator should have switched to the feminine, in keeping with the Greek αλήθεια. However, he erred and did not make the change, thus leaving the masculine pronoun to refer to God. In v. 40 εύλογητό^ ό θεός τί\ς αληθείας, the translator might have had before him: ‫בריך אלה ק ש ט א‬/‫מגרך‬, such is to say, "God-blessed is the truth", 18

which he understood to mean as 'Blessed is the God of truth'. *

4, The Language of the Redaction

I f we have succeeded in bringing sufficient evidence - and indeed the evidence has an accumulating importance - to show that the story was translated from a Semitic language, apparently from Aramaic, this still does not tell us how it came to form part of I Esd. It might have been included by an 'Aramaic' or 'Hebrew' redactor, but it might also have been in its Greek form that the story first reached the book. This is more than a hypothetical question since the answer has ramifications for the same traits which distinguish 1 Esd from the M T and which are connected to the inclusion of the Story of the Youths. I f the story was first included in I Esd already in its Greek form, then the changes caused by the interpolation of the story must have first been written in Greek as well. In the course of discussing 1 Esd's characteristics we noted a number of points which seemed to indicate intervention on the part of the translator, 19

and which nevertheless conform with I Esd's unique redaction." As a ! 8 i

Perhaps the Vorlage read: ‫ מ ב ר ך יהוה ק ו ש ט א‬/ ‫ ב ד י ך‬, such is to say: 'may the truth be blessed' and the translator understood the verb ‫ יהוה‬as the name of God. And ef.: d

‫ להוה כריך דין ק ו ש ט א‬in the Aramaic Enoch 4 Q E n l X I , 2, Milik, p. 218. m

This is the case for 2:18 ( E / r 4:14), in which the expression ‫ מ ל ח ה י כ ל א מ ל ח נ א‬is translated by και twt'i 6 ν * ρ γ ΰ τ ο ι τ ά κατά τ ό ν ν α ό ν , introducing the work al the Temple into the complaint, together with the choice of equivalents for the root of ‫ יסד‬in 5:52-60 (3:6-12), as well as the attribution of the title ‫ פחה‬to Zerubbabel in 6:28 (6:8-9). Indeed, these changes arc best explained on the assumption that the translator elaborated his Vorlage. But they also join two trends of redaction in

Composition

103

result, the question arose i f these changes might not be indicative of similar elaborations; should they all be explained as originating from the hand of the translator, even though they would seem more indicative of a different Vorlagel This possibility we reject out of hand. Even i f the translator was responsible for some significant changes, he probably did not audior the redaction as a whole. Since the evidence presupposes relations between a source and its translator, the supposition that the redaction was Greek also forces us to conclude that the redaction was made by the translator, and that we are not dealing with the redaction of an existing Greek translation. This would mean that in order to include the Greek story he undertook quite a comprehensive piece of translation, and during the course of translation, he also changed its structure and adapted its content. This scenario, which places all the work squarely on the shoulders of the translator, is not entirely logical, to say the least. Even were we to say that this translator, who gave himself a free hand in everything concerning linguistic usage, also intervened in matters of content, we would still be a long way from explaining the evolution of 1 Esd in its entirety. To be sure, details always make for a certain skepticism and foster a greater readiness to attribute the change to the translator. Such is not the case, however, when the discrepancy is on a larger scale. When we come across a passage like 1:21-22 in I Esd, unparalleled in the MT, we do not tend to attribute the addition to the translator since the shadow of the Hebrew original is hovering over each and every word. The major evidence that the inclusion of the story, and the changes in the book that it involved, did not take place at the level of Greek is found in the passage linking the Story of the Youths to the rest of the book (5:1-6). This passage could have been written in Aramaic, or it could have been written in Hebrew, but it is hard to believe that it was written in I Esd: the first two changes adapt the text to the different place of the letter of complaint in I E s d , and the last accords with Zerubbabel's special role in the Story of the Three Youths.

104

1 Esdras

Greek, i f only for the reason that here, more than anywhere else in the 1

book, the writing least fits the Greek pattern. *

0

Let us suffice by glancing at the following examples: (1) Three consecutive main sentences begin with και (5:2, 3, 4), evidence which is sufficient to cast strong doubt on the claim that the passage was originally written in Greek. (2) Both μ ε τ ά δε τ α ύ τ α (5:1), which starts the first part of the passage, and και ταύτα τ ά όι‫׳‬όματα (5:4), which starts its second part, reflect Semitic patterns. (3) The manner in which the groups of returning exiles are depicted: κατά π ά τ ρ ι α ς αυτών εις

τάς φυλάς em

τ η ν μεριδαρχίαν αυτών

(5:4) is pure biblical formulation. (4) The manner of noting the month by μηνί Νισάν του πρώτου μηνός (5:6) is again a biblical formula, which a 'Greek' writer would not use. (5) And finally, it would seem that at the bottom of the awkward Greek text in 5:5 stands a mistranslation of the Vorlage: οί Φινεές

υιοί! Ά α ρ ω ν

Ί η σ ο ΰ ς ό τοϊι

ιερείς υιοί

Ί ω σ ε δ έ κ τ ο υ Σαραίου και

Ι ω α κ ε ί μ ό του Ζοροβαβέλ του Σαλαθιήλ. The opening with οί ιερείς 'the priests' calls for more than one priest, yet only one priest is mentioned. Moreover, Joiakim was the son of Jeshua the son of Jozadak (Neh 12:26), while no son of Zerubbabel is known by this name. The leaders mentioned must have been the priests Jeshua and his son Joiakim, and Zerubbabel. It

There is no logic in Fritzsche's assumption that the story was written originally in Hellenistic Greek, and that the ending (5:1-6) is a translation whose Vorlage has not come down to us. If the passage linking the story to its context was originally Hebrew or Aramaic, the story could not possibly have been written first in Greek. The Semitic nature of this passage also refutes a conjecture like that of Pohlman (1970), pp. 35-52, who argues that the story was included in I Esd only after the book reached its Greek form, as a translation of 2 Chr 35-36, Ezr 1-10, Neh 8, and that only the inclusion of the story within the book led to the changes, at the level of Greek, in its internal order.

Composition

105

can only be that the pronoun of ‫ בנו‬or ‫ ברה‬which defined Joiakim as the son of Jeshua was overlooked, and Joiakim thus turned into ZerubbabeLs son. The words which the translator found before him, then, were: ‫הכהנים‬ m

‫ ב נ י פינחס בן אהרן ישוע בן יוצדק בן שריה ויויקים בנ)ו ו(זרובבל בן שאלתיאל‬, or similarly in Aramaic ‫כהניא בני פינחס בן אהרן ישוע בר יוצדק בר שריה ויויקים‬ ‫בר)ה ו(זרובבל בר שאלתיאל‬. According to this, the interpolation of the story in the book, as well as the changes made in the book in order to accommodate it, were accomplished before the translator set to work on the book. Should this be the case, the Greek of the entire book, both the Story of the Youths and the other parts, is by one and the same hand. Indeed, the story and the sections parallel to Chr-Ezr-Neh all bear the same stamp. In our discussion, we noted a similar distribution of linguistic usage between the story and the rest of I Esd. Let us illustrate the common style with a few examples: the phrase και τ ά άλλα πάντα comes both in 6:4 (Ezr 5:3) and in the story 4:5; χρυσώματα serves both 3:5 and 8:56 (Ezr 8:27); and in 8:51 (Ezr 8:22), the escort along the road is described as προπομπή, and in the story, 4:47, as'iva προπεμψωσιν αυτόν; the region is called Κοίλη Συρία και Φοινίκη in both the story - 4:48, and numerous times throughout the rest of the book; the Temple is called T O ιερόν in the story - 4 : 5 1 , 63, and in numerous other places in the book. All of these are unusual expressions in the corpus of the LXX. In sum, it is not to the evolution of the Greek corpus which I Esd attests, but rather to the evolution of a late redaction of a section of Chr, Ezr and Neh.

The omission of one or more waws before the letter zayin can be explained by the similarity between the letters, cf. ‫ ובוזיס‬in 2 Chr 36:16, as opposed to • ‫ ו כ י ו‬in I Esd 1:49.

IEsdras

106

Conclusion In view of the central problems that beset the formation of I Esd, it seems very likely that there existed a Hebrew-Aramaic work whose raison d'être was the Story of the Youths. The Story of the Youths is the core of the book; without it, all the rest of I Esd is pointless. Not only is it true that the book would not have survived - it would never have come into being at all, had not some author or redactor decided to weave the Story of the Youths into the history of the Restoration. The Story of the Youths is not just one of the differences between I Esd and the canonical books, but it is the reason for most of those differences. The Book of I Esd was created for the purpose of retelling the history of the Restoration in such a way that it revolved around the Story of the Three Youths and its hero Zerubbabel. The author of I Esd does not select the material for his book autonomously, nor does he structure it independently. Although he clearly intends to create a new work, he relies heavily on materials at his disposal. He does not carefully pick and choose from the various books of the Bible, adding extrabiblical and originally written material, and then use all these building blocks to create a new, continuous work of his own. If that had been his procedure, one would have expected him to produce a properly structured entity. For example, had he not been constrained by his source, he would presumably have begun with Josiah but dropped the succeeding kings, as does Ben Sira, who, after praising Josiah (Sirach 49:1-3), dismisses the later chapter of history in a few words: ‫לבד מדויד יחזקיהו ויאשיהו כלם‬ ‫ ויתן קרנם לאחור וכבודם לגוי נבל‬.‫ ויעזבו תורת עליון מלכי יהודה עד תמס‬.‫השחיתו‬ ‫ ויציתו קרית קדש וישמו ארחתיה‬.‫" נכרי‬Except David and Hezekiah and Josiah they all sinned greatly for they forsook the law of the Most High; the kings of Judah came to an end; for they gave their power to others, and their glory to a foreign nation, who set fire to the chosen city of the

Composition

107

sanctuary, and made her streets desolate" (49:4-6). However, the author of I Esd works in a different way: he begins at a certain point in a given continuous text, continuing from then on as in the original. The link between Chr and Ezr is not the personal contribution of the author of I Esd. The book's beginning is in one respect logical, but in another, it is purely arbitrary. The author presumably intended to begin his account when the First Temple was still standing and the Davidic kings still reigned, leading on to the Destruction and the Restoration through Zerubbabel who was scion of the Davidic dynasty, and his efforts to rebuild the Temple. Josiah was probably chosen as a king who reigned not long before the fall of the kingdom of Judah and who had earned much praise both in the Bible and in postbiblical literature. However, the opening of the book with Josiah's celebration of the Passover, i f not accidental, was not a good choice, as it resulted in the book lacking a clear-cut plan. Had the author begun with Josiah's succession to the throne, his discovery of the scroll of the Law, and the outcome of that event - religious reform and repairs to the Temple - then, going on to the celebration of the Passover, and finally ending with Ezra's reading of the Law and the festival of Booths, the book would have been well rounded. In that respect the decision to start with Josiah's Passover was in the nature of a technical, almost random, decision. The linkage between Ezr 10 and Neh 10 is the invention of the author of I Esd. For his purposes, it was clearly natural to extract the whole episode of the reading of the Law (and probably also the celebration of the feast of Booths) from the story of Nehemiah and transplant it to the story of Ezra. The fact that the reading of the Law opens with a parallel to Neh 7:72 demonstrates that the link between Ezr 10 and Neh 8 is secondary. The need to link up different parts of the Ezra narrative is also due to the omission of the story of Nehemiah. It seems probable that the author

I Esdras

108

of I Esd did not wish to give an account of Nehemiah. He therefore removed the chapter relating to Ezra from the account of Nehemiah's time and added it to the end of Ezr, thus, shifting the center of gravity from Nehemiah to Zerubbabel and crediting the latter with

Nehemiah's

achievements in the second part of the Story of the Youths. It was Zerubbabel who, through his sagacity, secured permission to return to Judah and to rebuild the Temple and Jerusalem: Zerubbabel, a representative of the Davidic line, has thus become the standard-bearer of the Restoration. The relationship between the Story of the Youths and Nehemiah's life story raises the following considerations. If the author wrote the Story of the Youths with his eye on the story of Nehemiah, one may well doubt whether it was ever entirely independent of the canonical books. It does not seem plausible that one author wrote the Story of the Youths independently of its present context, using elements from the story of Nehemiah, while another - the author responsible for the insertion of the story in I Esd - realizing that Zerubbabel was in many respects a duplicate Nehemiah, deliberately decided to omit the latter's story. The affinity between the two stories strongly supports the theory that one author wrote the Story of the Youths and created the setting of I Esd for its particular convenience. The version of history conveyed in this book ascribes the leadership of the Restoration to Zerubbabel and Ezra and not to Ezra and Nehemiah. The inclusion of the Story of the Youths made it necessary to rearrange Ezr 1-6. The statement that the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes, Ezr 4:6-24, was removed from its problematic position in Ezr is not accurate. The unit that was moved is the previous one, Ezr 2:1-4:5, featuring Zerubbabel as the leader of the returnees. It has now been assigned a new place after the Story of the Youths, which is the stage for the introduction of Zerubbabel. The letter of complaint was left in place, but once the previous unit had been moved away, the letter was left adjoining Ezr 1,

Composition

109

creating a well-nigh impossible juxtaposition - even worse than that in the canonical book. The end of the letter of complaint, 1 Esd 2:25, which states that the building was halted till Darius' reign, enabled the author to bring in the Story of the Youths. He chose an arrangement that enabled Zerubbabel to occupy the center of the stage, and the Story of the Youths functioned as a backdrop to that stage. Thus, the material in which there is no mention of Zerubbabel (Ezr 1, 4:6-24) was left together before the Story of the Youths, while the material in which Zerubbabel has a part (Ezr 2:1-4:5) was kept back until the story of Zerubbabel, i.e., the Story of the Youths, had been told. The course of events thus created in 1 Esd is impossible. Events pertaining to the beginning of Darius' reign are described twice - and in two different, mutually exclusive, versions: construction work is renewed in Darius' second year (a) when Zerubbabel returns after winning the contest at Darius' court (Story of the Youths), (b) with the encouragement of the prophets and the renewed permission to build after the intervention of Tattenai, governor of Beyond the River, as related in the biblical version, which was also copied into I Esd. The inclusion of the Story of the Youths was an act of literary epigonism whose result lacks a proper backbone. The Story of the Youths betrays the milieu in which I Esd was composed. The book was not forged in the same furnaces as the canonical books of the Bible. The author, or the redactor, who wove it into the history of the Restoration and fathered the impossible course of events described in I Esd, had nothing to do with the masters of the Chronicler's school. I Esd was born in a later generation, in a period that had already seen the creation of such Books as Esther and Daniel and, later, the additions to Esther and the apocryphal stories attached to Daniel. These books, as preserved in the L X X , open up a window to the Books of the Apocrypha. I Esd is a vestige of the intense literary activity, revolving around the Books of the Bible, of authors who wrote imaginary tales about biblical figures; they were a long way away from any living tradition or, surely, authentic history.

CHAPTER TWO

I ESDRAS' VORLAGE COMPARED WITH 2 CHR 35-36, EZRA 1-10 AND NEH 8

Introduction

As we established in our discussion of its composition, I Esd presents itself as a later revision of a work not much different from that preserved in the parallel parts of Chr-Ezr-Neh. The main trends of this revision, as we argued, were first of all the interpolation of the Story of the Three Youths and the ensuing different order of events, as well as the omission of Nehemiah's Memoirs, thus enabling Zerubbabel and Ezra to become the only leaders of the restoration. This major revision of the work must have entailed smaller changes, such as the attempts to further enhance the image of Zerubbabel. Other differences may also derive from the hand of the same revisor. although their connection with the main themes that interest him is not obvious. However, the majority of variants have nothing to do with the revision and should be understood as part of the textual evolution. The text in front of the revisor who created I Esd must have been different from the M T to a certain extent. One may assume that his text was partly older and partly younger than the text-form which finally crystallized in the MT. We thus set out to evaluate the relationship between the Vorlage of I Esd and the parallel parts of the M T in regard to the history of the texts. The questions surrounding 1 Esd's Vorlage have evoked entirely different answers. Some scholars do not even consider the possibility of a 191

different Vorlage.

Other studies, eccentric as they may be, attribute

every single difference between 1 Esd and the M T to 1 Esd's m

Moulton (1899; 1900), who was the first to provide a list of differences between I Esd and the M T , set them all under the heading of translation technique.

"‫ יי‬Especially Jahn (1909). His reconstruction is a model of how not to reconstruct a text. The following few examples, out of a multitude of similar ones, show his method, or rather lack of method. 8:45 (Ezr 8:17)

Kai

TOI? i\>

TW

m

Vorlage.

Toiup yaCodmXaftv

which undoubtedly reflects M T ' s ‫ י נ י ם ב כ ס פ י א ה מ ק ו ם‬/ ‫ ה נ ת ו‬, is reconstructed by Jahn into: ‫ אשר ב מ ק ו ם‬0) ‫שמרי כית ה כ ס ף‬. Similarly, 8:69 (9:4) ‫־־ כ ל החרד בדברי אלהי ישראל‬

114

1 Esdras

The more balanced studies recognize a certain amount of variants in I Esd, but still credit the translator with most of the differences, even with many of the omissions,

193

This reserved attitude towards I Esd's textual evidence

was inspired by several reasons: 1) I Esd as a whole, being considered a later revision, affected, inappropriately, the judgment of the text proper. 2) Since the translation of I Esd goes far beyond the traditional literal translations characteristic of the L X X , it seemed right to attribute to the translator any changes which would not usually be considered under translation technique. 3) The general reluctance to accept the existence of divergent parallel texts prior to the flourish of Qumran studies also contributed to the rejection of a different text underlying I Esd. Torrey was not intimidated by such arguments. At the beginning of the century, he spoke of two text types underlying I Esd on the one hand, and the MT, the L X X (in his view, Theodotion), and the Vulgate on the other.

194

Klein

(1966) eagerly joined the line set by Torrey and went on to prove - on the basis of differences in the length of the text - that I Esd is a faithful translation of a text-form different from the M T . '

M

In my view, while I Esd's Vorlage is indeed hidden under the heavy veil of a quite eccentric translation, it remains an acceptable witness to the history of the text. A thorough investigation of the translator's technique όσοι ττοτέ «‫>זז‬κινοϋντο τω ρήμστι κυρίου..., Jahn: .

.

.

5

:

4

3.‫הי‬

( 2 : 6 8 ) ‫ ־־ התנדבו לבית ה א ל ה י ם להעמידו על מ כ ת ו‬αΊξαντο ΐ γ ά ρ α ι τ ο ν οίκον c m τοϋ τόπου αύτοϋ, Jahn:‫ נדרו להעיר )!( א ת הבית על מקומו‬. On top of this absurd reproduction of a certainly non-existent Vorlage of the Hebrew parts, he also reconstructed those parts of I Esd which have an Aramaic counterpart in the M T into Hebrew! Batten (1913) also went much too far in reconstructions of this sort. Among these are the extensive studies by Bayer (1911) and Walde (1913), and the commentaries by Bewer (1922) and Rudolph (1949). 4

" T o r r e y (1910), pp. 82-90. 5

'‫ י‬Cross (1975), pp. 7ff, took into account Klein's conclusions regarding different text types represented in I Esd and the M T in reconstructing the different redactions of the work of the Chronicler. In my opinion, these issues pertain to different levels.

Vorlage

115

and a constant consideration of his tendencies and peculiarities as opposed to possible variants in his text, causes his Vorlage to become more and more accessible. Although many cases remain ambiguous, we had to make a decision as to where a certain difference between I Esd and the M T belonged. Texts presented in the present chapter allegedly demonstrate the natural process of text transmission of I Esd's Vorlage on the one hand and the MT on the other. Consequently, they neither pertain, in the main, to the revision characteristic of I Esd, as described in the first chapter, nor do they belong with the cases which establish the image of the translator, described in detail in the following chapter. Unlike Klein, I do not believe that the comparison of I Esd's Vorlage and the parallel parts in Chr-Ezr-Neh may lead us to the Urtext of this work. Rather, the comparison between the conjectured Vorlage of I Esd and the M T demonstrates the course of two texts which took different routes and underwent ongoing alteration. In our comparison of the texts, we concentrate on the given stages of the texts as reflected in the extant witnesses; the MT, on the one hand, and the text reflected in I Esd, on the other, have a large common basis but also a long and substantial separate history of transmission. In this chapter we attempt to provide the full evidence which forms the variance between I Esd's Vorlage and the M T . The variants were gathered and classified after a careful analysis of the text, which will be presented in detail in the forthcoming commentary. In this framework, we cannot but offer random comments on certain difficult cases. Some examples remain disputable. Nevertheless, we believe that the grouped variants clearly establish parallel patterns and trends in the transmission of both the M T and I Esd's Vorlage.

116

I Esdras The text used as basis for the reconstruction of I Esd's Vorlage is the

impeccable text established by Hanhart in the Gottingen edition. This edition, although eclectic, is based primarily on the B-text and only seldom borrows meaningful variants from other text-groups. Indeed, only rarely did we find it necessary to refer to readings in MSS mentioned in the apparatus which may affect the Vorlage. In these few cases we specifically noted that the text which in our view represents the Vorlage of I Esd is not the text chosen by Hanhart as the original Greek text. The relationship between the Greek and its assumed Vorlage is noted by the sign ‫־־‬, which is meant to designate the doubts that accompany any reconstruction.

I. Variants Under 'variants' we include all the details in which I Esd's conjectured Vorlage differs from the MT, except for omissions / additions and differences in word-order. The latter are dealt with separately since they are related to translation technique in too many ways. The issue of omissions and additions deserves individual treatment as it is an outstanding factor in the history of these texts. A l l the variants attest to the evolution of the texts, notwithstanding the originality of one text or the other. a. Reading Variants Since the text in front of the translator was naturally unvocalized, reading variants have to be described as the result of the interaction between the translator and the letters he found in his Vorlage. In fact, they are hardly variants at all since it is actually wrong to reconstruct a different vocalization assumed on the basis of the translation. Nevertheless, other variants too, e.g., a variant which constitutes an interchange between two similar letters, may also be only the result of what the translator imagined to see in his text, rather than an actual variant. In addition, the translator

117

Vorlage

may, of course, preserve a genuine reading tradition. We note that while reading variants may seem trivial, in the majority of cases different vocalization entirely changes the meaning of the word. 1. 1:10 (2 Chr 35:10) MT:(‫כמצות )המלך‬.

I Esd: έ χ ο ν τ ε ς τ ά ά£υμα = ‫במצות‬.

The context proves that the M T probably preserves the original (see pp. 139-140). 2. 1:10(35:12) MT: ‫לבקר‬.

I Esd: τό πρωινόν ~ ‫לבקר‬.

The M T is the preferred reading, as suggested by the pair ‫צאן־בקר‬. 35:25)1:30 .3) MT: ‫השרים והשרות‬.

I Esd: και 01 προκαθήμενοι συν γυναιξί ν ‫השרים והשרות ־־‬.

This is hardly a genuine variant. It rather seems to be the translator's interpretation envisaging the royal court instead of the singers. 4-5. 2:6,8 (Ezr 1:4,6) MT: ‫רכוש‬.

I Esd: μεθ' ί π π ω ν / ί π π ο ι ς ‫רכש ־־‬.

It may, however, be the translator's solution for the MT's ‫רכוש‬, a word which he does not seem to know. 6.9:10(10:12) MT: ‫כדברך‬.

6

I Esd: ώς εϊρηκας".‫כדבךן=־‬

9:53.7(Neh 8:11) MT: ‫נלחשים‬.

I Esd: έκέλευον‫מחשים ־־‬.

In the M T the form is a derivative of ‫' חשה‬to silence', whereas, our translator derived it from ‫' חיש‬to urge'. The M T further develops the same 1

Cf. 1:49 (2 Chr 3 6 : ! 6 ) ‫ ך ן ר ה ׳‬- ‫דבריו‬.

118

I Esdras

motif with ‫' הסו‬be silent', which remains unrepresented in I Esd. Hushing the weeping people perfectly fits the context, although urging the people at this point is not out of place. 8.7:14 (Ezr6:22) M T : ‫כי שמחם ה ׳‬.

I Esd: εύφραινόμενοι έναντι του κυρίου ‫כי שמחים לפגי הי ־־‬.

Different vocalization may have caused the introduction of the more common phrase in 1 Esd. 9. 9:20 (Ezr 10:19) MT: ‫ נ ע י מ י ם‬.

I Esd: και ε ι ς έξιλασμόν ‫אשם ־=־‬ (cf. LXX).

We note that the reading variants adduced above do not necessarily illustrate the state of the matres lectionis in the compared texts.

b. Phonetic Variants Unlike different vocalization, phonetic variants are more apprehensible as existent in the Vorlage. In two cases, two gutturals presumably interchange: 1. 8:41 (Ezr 8:15) MT: ‫ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם‬. I Esd: και κατέμαθον αυτούς και έκ των

υιών των ιερέων και έκ‫ ׳‬των

Λευιτών ούχ εύρων έκει ~ .‫ואבינה בהם ומבני הכהנים ומן הלוים לא מצאתי שם‬ Since Ezra is looking only for Levites, I Esd's formulation must be secondary. 2. 8:49 (8:21) MT: ‫ואקרא שם צום על הנהר א ה ו א‬. I Esd: και εύξάμην έκε'ί νηστείαν τοις νεανίσκοις = ‫ואקרא שם צום על הנערים‬.

119

Vorlage

Mentioning, particularly, the young men in connection with the fast makes little sense. The corruption may be described in three stages: ‫הנהר‬ was mistaken for ‫ ;הנער‬then, it was modified to read the plural, thus entailing the omission of the name of the river.

197

3. 1:10 (2 Chr 35:12) MT: ‫לבני העם‬.

1

I Esd: e[.mpoc70e‫׳‬1 TOU Xaou =

9

8

. ‫־‬

The variants may have been created either through interchange of the labials ‫פ‬/‫ב‬, or because of the graphical resemblance between the letters and the entire words. Both variants are acceptable in the context.

c. Graphic Variants

Variants caused by the interchange of similar letters may illustrate the graphical quality of the translator's Vorlage. In those cases in which the variant reflected in the translation is secondary, it is impossible to tell whether the change first occurred in the process of translation or in the Vorlage. First, the interchange ‫ג‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬/‫ב‬: 2) 1:48 .1 Chr 36:15) MT: ‫השכם ושלוח‬.

I Esd: tieTaKaXeacu

CIUTOUS

- ‫השבם‬.

The reading of ‫ השכם‬as ‫ השבם‬then caused the omission of the following ‫ושלוח‬. The M T is to be preferred (see p. 139).

2. 2:1 (Ezr 1:1) MT:‫מפי‬.

IEsd:evaT0f1aTL ‫( ב פ י ־‬Cf. 2Chr 36:22).

It is less plausible to argue that ‫ אהוא‬was missing in I Esd's Vorlage, independent of the change ‫נערים‬/‫נהר‬. Cf. 1 Chr 26:15 ‫ ·־ ולבניו‬Karc'vaiTt, possibly for ‫לפני‬.

120

I Esdras

3. 5:47 (3:2) MT:{‫ויבנו)את מזבח אלהי ישראל‬,

I Esd: f)T01paacu‫ויכנו «׳‬.

I Esd is repetitive since the same statement occurs in the following verse:‫ויכינו המזבח על מכונתיו‬. 10:2) 9:2

.4)

MT: ‫וילך‬.

I Esd: tea! auXiaOeis »‫ויל|־‬.

I Esd preserves the original reading; the M T is repetitive: ‫וילך אל‬ 99

‫ אלישיב וילך שם לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה‬p '.‫לשכתיהוחנן־‬ The common interchange of ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬occurs in examples which display further changes, such as metathesis: 5.2:8(1:6) MT: ‫לבד‬.

I Esd: cos TrXeLOTats = ‫לרב‬.

The Peshitta's reading ‫ דטב‬agrees with I Esd. 61 8:66 (9:1) M

T

:

1 .‫ והאמרי‬Esd: icai' ISoupatwt/ ~ ‫והאדמי‬.

The Ammorites at the end of the list of people is awkward in the MT, while the Edomites seem natural beside the Egyptians in accordance with Deut 23. Nevertheless, seeing that the author of the Story of the Three Youths shows interest in the Edomites, it is possible that it is part of the later revision.

d. Combined Graphic and Contextual Variants

Even in the comparatively simple cases of ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬+ metathesis adduced above, it is obvious that the change is not strictly graphical but is initiated by the concept of the word as a whole and possibly also by reasons m

" The same interchange occurs in Josh 8:9 ‫וילן יהושע בלילה ה ה ו א בתוך ה ע ם‬, as against v. 13: ‫ ;וילך יהושע בלילה ה ה ו א בתוך ה ע מ ק‬also Jer 31 (38):9 ‫ « אוליכס‬ai>X(‫׳‬£101.

121

Vorlage

beyond the mere graphical affinity. This is all the more obvious in the following cases which are still unmistakably generated by a general graphical similarity between the texts but entail further changes in the formulation and meaning of the text: 1. 1:27 (2 Chr 35:23) MT: ‫וירו הירים‬.

I Esd: Kai. mji^T\aav 01 apxo‫׳׳‬1Tcg ~ ‫וירדו השרים‬.

The MT's picture of the king being shot on the battlefield seems to be the original one. While I Esd's variant may have originated from a combined graphical error, it is not impossible that the change was intentional to avoid Josiah's injury in battle (see notes 20, 36). 2. 1:49 (2 Chr 36:16) MT:‫ובתים דבריו‬.

I Esd: Kai ‫ ןז‬fpepg e\d\r)0ev Ktipios ~ ‫וביום ד©־ ה׳‬.

Here we have to take into consideration an interchange of ‫ז‬/‫ו‬, a different word division, and finally the confusion of the pronoun and the divine name. Of course, the changes are not independent of each other. The MT's range of verbs ...‫ ומתעתעים‬...‫ ובוזים‬...‫ ויהיו מלעבים‬is more plausible. 3. 9:16 (Ezr 10:16) MT:‫ויבדלו‬.

I Esd: Kai eneXe^aTo eavrQ ~ ‫ויבדל לו‬.

The M T is unclear; whereas, I Esd provides a smooth text: ‫ויבדל לו עזרא‬ ­‫ וישבו‬...‫הכהן אנשים‬. 4. 2:8 ( ! ^ ) MT: ‫בכלי כסף בזהב‬.

I Esd: ev TTCtau‫׳‬, dpyupuo Kai xpuatw = ‫בכל בכסף ובזהב‬.

I Esd is supported by other translations and is more plausible.

122

I Esdras

5. 1:16 (2 Chr 35:16) I Esd: και συνετέλέσθη = ‫ותכל‬

MT: ‫ותבון כל‬.

(ef. Vulgate). 6. 1:53 (36:19) I Esd: και συνετέλεσαν πάντα

MT:‫וכל כלי‬.

~ ‫ וכלו כל‬. 7. 1:3 (35:3) MT: ‫הקדושים‬.

I Esd: άγιάσαι εαυτούς ‫( להקדשם ־־‬ef. L X X ) , or ~ ‫( הקדשו‬cf. the Peshitta).

8. 1:6(35:6) I Esd: και τ ά ς θυσίας ετοιμάσατε

MT:‫והתקדשו והכינו‬.

~ ‫( והקדשים הכינו‬cf. L X X ) . Below we briefly mention some additional possible variants. While there is a certain formal affinity between the readings, it is no easy matter to explain the interchange. The influence of the context seems to be the main reason for the change. 9. 1:3 (2 Chr 35:3) MT: ‫המבינים‬.

I Esd: lepoSouXois ~ ‫הנתינים‬.

10. 1:9 (35:9) MT: ‫שרי הלוים‬.

1 Esd: xiXiapxoi ~ ‫שרי אלפים‬.

35:18) 1:19

.11) I Esd: ev rrj KaToitcnaei auTtSv

MT: ‫ויושבי ירושלם‬.

ev' lepouiraXTJp. = ‫במשבתם בירושלם‬ 12. 1:25 (35:21) MT: ‫בית‬. 35:24) 1:28

.13)

MT: ‫המרכבה‬.

I Esd: TO ‫ ס‬Eu4)pdT0u ~ ‫פרת‬. I Esd: Tf!s napaTd^eios ~

‫המערכה‬.

Vorlage 14. 1:31 (35:25) MT: ‫ככתוב‬.

123 IEsd: και τ η ς συνέσεως

αύτοϋ

~ ‫ובינתו‬. 36:8) 1:40 .15) ΜΤ: ‫אשר עשה‬.

I fisd: tca'1 τ η ς αύτοϋ ακαθαρσίας. Presumably ~ ?‫?ורשעתו‬.

5:53.16(Ezr 3:7) MT: ‫ושמן‬.

I Esd: ms Β και χαρα ‫?ושמחה! ־־‬.

This is a very dubious example, especially since it may be a case of an inner-Greek corruption χρίμα-χαρα, which would suggest that I Esd's text was the same as the MT. Hanhart, rather unconvincingly, chose to print in his text the variant και κάρρα. I f ‫ ושמחה‬is indeed a variant, the M T seems preferable, since the context requires items payed in return for the work done by the Sidonians: ‫ומאכל ומשתה ושמן־ לצדנים‬. 3:12) 5:60 .17) M T : ‫ורבים‬.

I Esd: και ήλθοσαν =‫ויבאו ־‬.

Tire structure of the verse shows the M T to be the original: ...‫ורבים‬ ‫ בשמחה‬...‫ ורבים‬...‫בכים‬. 18. 6:17 (5:14). 1

MT:

‫והיבל המו להיכלא‬

τω εαυτού ναω ~ ‫ויהב המו בהיכלא‬. 5:17) 6:21 .19) ΜΤ: ‫דך‬.

I Esd: του = ‫די‬.

7:28) 8:27 .20) MT: ‫ראשים‬.

I Esd: άι/δρας ‫אנשים ־‬.

8:23) 8:53 ΜΤ: ‫ונצומה ונבקשה‬.

.21) I Esd: και πάλιν έδέήθημέν ~ ‫ונשובה ונבקשה‬.

I Esd's ‫ ונשובה ונבקשה‬is out of place since there was no previous request. 22. 8:74 (9:7) MT: ‫אנחנו‬.

I Esd: τοις άδέλφοΐς ημών ‫אחינו ־־‬.

124

I Esdras

23. 8:76 (9:8) MT: ‫מעט‬.

I Esd: έν τώ καιρώ ‫בעת ־־‬.

The change sometimes involves more than one word producing an entirely different text; nevertheless, the interdependence between the texts is still visible: 24. 1:36 (2 Chr 36:4) MT:

‫ויסב א ת שמו יהויקים ואת יואחז אחיו לקח נכו ויביאהו מצרימה‬

I Esd: και έδησεν Ιωακείμ τους μεγιστάνας, Ζάριον δε τον άδελφόν αυτού συλλαβών άνήγαγενέξ Αιγύπτου .‫ויאסר יהויקים א ת השרים ואת זז אחיו לקח ויביאהו ממצרים‬ 25. 6:26 (Ezr 6:7) MT:

1

.‫דך‬

‫שבקו לעבידת בית אלהא‬

κυρίου Ζοροβαβέλ = ‫שבקו לעבדא די אלהא זרבבל‬. I Esd's text complies with the general trend in the book which seeks to ennoble Zerubbabel. 26. 9:36 (10:44) Against the MT's ‫ויש מהם נשים וישימו בנים‬, I Esd reads και απέλυσαν αύτας σύν τέκνοις "and they sent them away with their sons". It is difficult to reconstruct the Vorlage. The text may have read ‫וישלחום עם‬ ‫בניהם‬, thus providing a clear-cut ending which is definitely lacking in the MT. The following variants are obviously intentional, although, the revisor tries to stay as close to the original text as possible: 27. 1:15 (2 Chr 35:21) MT: ‫ואל ישחיתך‬.

I Esd: και μή ενάντιου τώ κυρία) ~ ‫ואל תשחית לאלהים‬.

28. 1:50 (36:17) MT: ‫בבית מקדשם‬.

I Esd: περικύκλω του άγιου αυτών ιερού ‫סביב בית מקדשם ־־‬.

E

Vorlage

125

Finally, texts which relate little to each other but, nevertheless, may have started from a simple interchange of similar words: 29. 1:24(35:21) MT: ‫וישלח אליו מלאכים‬.

I Esd: και διεπεμψατο βασιλεύς Αιγύπτου προς αυτόν ‫־־‬ ‫וישלח מלך מצרים אליו‬.

Klein (p. 105) argues that the original text was ‫ וישלח אליו‬which was expanded in the M T by an object, and in I Esd by the subject; and yet, one cannot overlook the connection between ‫ מלאכים‬and ‫מלך‬. 35:21) 1:25 MT: ‫לא עליך א ת ה היום‬.

.30) I Esd: ούχι προς σε έξαπεσταλμαι ύπό κυρίου τοΰ θεού ~ ?‫?לא אליך שלחני ה׳ אלהים‬

I Esd may reflect a completely different text. It may, however, be the translator's solution to a difficult text (other translators understood the word ‫ אתה‬as a verb 'to come'). 31.5:38 (Ezr2:61) The MT: ‫בני ברזלי אשר לקח מבנות ברזלי הגלעדי אשה ויקרא על שמם‬. I Esd: υιοί ‫י‬Ιοδδούς τού λαβόντος Α ύ γ ί α ν γυναίκα των θυγατέρων Φαρ£ελλαίου και εκλήθη επί τω ονόματι αυτού. I Esd provides a name for him who married a daughter of Barzilai's, as well as, a name for her whom he married. One wonders whether both Αύγία andΊoδδoυς were not conceived from the surname ‫הגלעדי‬, not represented otherwise in I Esd. The M T is the original since it specifies that he was renamed Barzilai on marrying a daughter of that family. In sum, in quite a few of the variants which emerged through graphical resemblance, it is not exactly clear which variant is to be preferred (about 15 cases); in some (8 cases), I Esd seems to preserve the original text, while in others (about 15 cases) the M T is to be preferred. Both texts,

126

I Esdras

then, have undergone their share of corruption or rewriting; although, the M T seems to be in a better condition. Moreover, i f we do not count the cases, but, rather, weigh them, we may say that in conventional interchanges well-known in the process of text transmission, the M T and I Esd show the same amount of corruption. However, in the more complicated cases, which are on the verge of revision, the M T clearly appears to preserve the original text. A l l the cases adduced above constitute variants which are similar in form, to a certain degree. One is, therefore, bound to assume that they are genetically connected, that is, one form is the original whereas the other emerged from it, either by sheer mistake or by intention. Finally, we have to remind ourselves repeatedly that, in many cases, there is no way of telling whether the reading in question existed as a real variant or was born in the mind of the translator.

e. Contextual Variants In this group there is no formal connection between the variants. The variant was either directly borrowed from the context or more generally influenced by the content: 1. l:2(2Chr35:2) M T : ‫ויחזקם לעבודת בית ה ׳‬.

I Esd: έστολισμένους έν τ φ ίερω του κυρίου = ‫מלבשים בבית הי‬.

I Esd pays attention to the clothing of the priests on other occasions also. 2. 1:4 (35:4) MT: ‫ובמכתב‬.

I Esd: και κατά τή!-‫ ׳‬μεγαλειότητα ‫( וכיד ־־‬cf. LXX).

The MT's ‫ במכתב‬was borrowed from the context, replacing the original ‫וכיד‬, reflected in both Ι&Π Esd (see pp. 134-135, 189).

127

Vorlage 3. 1:26 ( 3 5 : 2 2 )

MT: ‫ממנו‬. 35:25)

I Esd: έπί το άρμα αυτού ~ ‫על רכבו‬.

1:31

.4)

ΜΤ: ‫על הקינות‬.

I Esd: έν τω βυβλίω των βασιλέων 'Ισραήλ και'Ιούδα = ‫על ספר דברי הימים למלכי יהודה‬.

The M T seems to preserve the original; I Esd's formula was borrowed by mistake from the context. 5.5:41 (E7.r2:64) MT:

1

.‫כאחד‬

‫כל ה ק ה ל‬

από δωδεκαετούς ~ ‫כל ישראל מבן שתים עשרה‬. I Esd introduces a post-biblical designation of the age-limit of 20

adulthood. " 6. 7:6 (6:16) MT: ‫חנכת בית אלהא דנה בחדוה‬.

I Esd: ακολούθως τοις έν τ ή Μωυσέως βίβλω ~ •‫ככתב ספר משר‬.

The inauguration disappears in 1 Esd; instead, a phrase that appears in the context is introduced.

7. 8:17 (7:19) MT:‫לפלחן‬.

I Esd: εις τήν χρείαν = ‫לחשחות‬.

I Esd's presumed Vorlage ‫ חשחות‬appears again in the context. 8. 8:28 (8:1) MT: ‫והתיחשם‬.

I Esd: και τ ά ς μεριδαρχίας ‫!למפלגות׳ ־־‬

Mishna Nvdda 5:6 ‫" בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום א ח ד נדריו נבדקין‬he who is twelve years and one day old, his vows are cheeked".

Esd: o

128

I Esdras

9. 9:40 (Neh 8:2) MT;‫נןבין‬.

I Esd: τοις ίερεύσιν = ‫הכהנים‬.

The following are characteristic of I Esd: 10.5:46 (Ezr3:l) MT: ‫ירושלם‬.

I Esd: το ευρύχωροι- του πρώτου πυλώνος τοϋ προς τ ή ανατολή ~ ‫הרחוב אשר לפני השער למזרח‬.

We assume an original text τό προ του instead of τού πρώτου. Similarly: 11.9:38 (Neh 8:1) MT:

1

.‫המים‬

‫הרחוב אשר לפני שער‬

ανατολάς του ιερού πυλώνος « ‫הרחוב אשר למזרח שער בית האלהים‬. 12. 9:41 (Neh 8:3) MT: ‫הרחוב אשר לפני שער המים‬.

I Esd: έν τω προ τού ιερού πυλώνος εύρυχώρω ~ ‫ברחוב אשר לפני שער בית האלהים‬.

f. Stylistic Variants As opposed to graphical variants which are close in form and quite different in meaning, stylistic variants have little in common in respect to their form, but they are very close in meaning. Contrary to other categories in which the context is, in many cases, bound to suggest which variant is to be preferred, in the following instances, we are usually unable to decide which variant is the original one. The interchanges do not affect the meaning of the text; only rarely do they offer a different interpretation, or introduce a new idea. Hardly ever would the characteristic revision of I Esd find expression in this sort of variant.

Esd:

129

Vorlage 1. 1:23 (2 Chr 35:20) MT:‫נכו‬.

I Esd:Φαραώ ‫פרעה ־־‬.

Note that 'Necho' disappears in I Esd altogether. 2. 5:48 (Ezr 3:2) I Esd: έν τή... βίβλω ~ ‫בספר‬.

MT: ‫בתורת‬. 3:11)

5:58

.3)

MT: ‫תרועה גדולה‬.

I Esd:φωνή μεγάλη ~ ‫קול גדול‬ (cf. L X X ) .

5:13)

6:16

.4)

MT: ‫שם טעם‬. 8:22)

8:52

.5)

MT:‫לאמו־‬. 9:11)

I Esd: o n ‫כי ־־‬.

6 . 8 : 7 9 ) MT: ‫צוית‬.

9:12)

I Esd: έγραψεν ~ ‫כתב‬.

I Esd: έδωκας = ‫( נתת‬cf. L X X ) .

7 . 8 : 8 2 ) MT: ‫עד עולם‬.

I Esd: τον άπαντα χρόνον ‫־־‬ ‫כל הימים‬.

9:14)8:84 .8) MT: ‫מצותיך‬.

I Esd: τον νόμον σου ‫תורתן ־־‬.

9.9:37 (Neh7:72) MT:(‫ויגע )החדש‬.

I Esd: τ ή νουμηνία ‫=־‬ (‫ביום א ח ד )לחדש‬,

Designations of the Temple: 10. 1:5 (2 Chr 35:5) MT: ‫בקדש‬.

I Esd: έν τώ tepto ~ ‫בבית‬.

6:17.11(Ezr 5:14) MT: ‫היכלא‬.

I Esd: του οίκου =‫ביתא ־‬.

I Esdras

130 12. 6:25 (6:5) MT: ‫היכלא‬.

1 Esd: του οίκου ~ ‫ביתא‬.

6:5) 6:25 .13) MT: ‫להיכלא‬.

I Esd: εις τον οίκον =‫לביתא ־‬,

Designations of the people

the country:

14. l:5(2Chr35:5)

υιώνΙσραήλ ~ ‫בני ישראל‬.

MT: ‫בני העם‬.

I Esd:

36:1) 1:32 .15) MT: ‫עם הארץ‬.

I Esd: 01 e κ τοΰ έθνους ~

16. 1:34 (36:3)

‫בני העם‬.

MT: ‫הארץ‬. £2) 5:7 .17x2:1) MT‫־‬. ‫המדינה‬. 2:64) 5:41 MT: ‫הקהל‬.

.18)

7:13)19.8:16) MT: ‫יהודה‬. 10:1) 8:88

.20)

MT: ‫מישראל‬.

1 Esd: τό έθνος ~ ‫העם‬.

I Esd: τ η ς 'Ιουδαίας ~ ‫ יהודה‬.

I Esd:Ισραήλ ‫ י ש ר א ל ־‬.

I Esd: Ισραήλ ‫ישראל־־־‬. I Esd: άπό 'Ιερουσαλήμ ‫־־‬ •‫מירושל‬.

10:6) 9:2 .21) MT: ‫הגולה‬. 10:6) 9:1 .22) MT:(‫מלפני)בית האלהים‬.

I Esd: τοΰ πλήθους ‫הקהל =־‬.

I Esd: άπσ τ η ς αυλής ‫=־‬ (‫מחצר )בית האלהים‬.

131

Vorlage

The following variant, distinguishing between Jerusalem and the rest of the province, is characteristic of I Esd; it is not impossible, however, that the translator rephrased the Vorlagc (see pp. 258-259). 23. 5:45 (2:70) MT: ‫בעריהם‬.

I Esd: έι‫'׳׳‬Ιερουσαλήμ και τή χώρα ‫זבירושלם ובמדינה! ־־‬

9:37.24(Neh 7:72) MT: ‫בעריהם‬.

I Esd: έν Ιερουσαλήμ και εν τ ή χιόρα ‫יבירושלם ובמדינה! ־־‬

The following variants constitute simple reformulations of phrases: 25. 1:40 (2 Chr 36:8) MT:

1

.‫ויהודה‬

‫על ספר מלבי ישראל‬

Esd: cv ‫זד‬

paaiAewv ‫על ספר דברי הימים למלכים ־־‬. The formulation in the MT is the more common one. 26. 6:27 ^

6:8)

MT: ‫למבנא‬.

I Esd: μέχρι του έτητελεσθήνα ‫־־‬ ‫עד יתבנא‬.

9:14) 8:85

.27)

MT: ‫עד כלה‬.

I Ε8ά:άπολέσαι ημάς έως ‫לכלותנו עד ־־‬.

9:14)8:84 .28) MT: ‫בעמי התעבות האלה‬.

I Esd: τ ή ακαθαρσία των εθνών τ ή ς γης ~ ‫( בתועבת עמי הארצות‬ϋί. ΕΧΧ).

5:9)6:10 .29) MT: ‫כנמא אמרנא להם‬. 7:27) 8:25

I Esd: λέγοντες ‫לממר ־־‬. .30)

MT: ‫ברוך ה׳ אלהי אבותינו‬.

I Esd: Εύλογητός μόνος ό κύριος ~ ‫ברוך ה׳ לבדו‬.

132

I Esdras

31. 8:71 (9:6) MT ‫להרים אלהי פני אליך‬,

I Esd: κατά πρόσωπον σου ~ ‫לפניך‬.

1:3) 2:5 ΜΤ: ‫הוא האלהים אשר בירושלם‬.

.32) I Esd: ούτος ό κύριος ό κατασκηνώσας ένΊερουσαλήμ ~ ‫הוא ה אלה ים השכן בירושלם‬.

I Esd's reference to God is more moderate. Significantly, many of the variants introduced in this category are necessary components of the text. Therefore, they do not attest to a secondary growth of the parallel texts, each text being expanded by a different element. One of the variants must have been in the original text, only to be replaced by an equivalent at a later stage in the course of transmission. The large number of stylistic interchanges, as well as the numerous contextual divergencies, lucidly demonstrate the intensive evolution of the texts before they were crystalhzed in their present form.

II. Word-Order

The data concerning the state of word-order in I Esd as compared with the M T are handled in the chapter which deals with translation technique. Although it may forward some interesting consequences in regard to the history of the text, we preferred to cite the entire material together, and the fact is that the majority of cases do indeed belong to translation technique. We mention here briefly three categories of word-order which possibly belong here, that is to changes introduced in the process of transmission, not by the translator. They all seem to testify to revisions affecting the Aramaic material much more than the Hebrew sections:

Vorlage

133

1. The place of the verb in the sentence. The fact that in I Esd the verb is placed earlier in the sentence than it is in the M T may testify to a later revision which tends to replace the western Aramaic pattern by the eastern one (see pp. 223-229). 2. In I Esd, the title ‫ מלך‬precedes the name whereas in the M T it follows it; again, mainly in the Aramaic material. The usage in the Aramaic of Daniel supports our assumption that the change might have happened in the Vorlage, rather than in the process of translation (see pp. 221-223). 3. Another change of word-order which occurs in the Aramaic material is that of the components of ‫כסף ודהב‬, which are replaced throughout I Esd with ‫( ד ה ג וכסף‬see pp. 219-220). Other transpositions too probably occurred on the level of transmission, not translation, especially where entire passages are concerned (see pp. 231-233). Assuming the mentioned transpositions indeed attest to the history of the text, they add substantial evidence and help define the nature of the evolution of the compared texts from a different angle: as we also argue in the case of additions/omissions, it is not only a matter of glosses added in the process of transmission, but rather, a variegated and intensive process of rewriting which affected both texts.

HI. Additions / Omissions

The main discrepancy between I Esd and the M T lies in the length of the text. In his book, Klein (1966) described this phenomenon at length in an attempt to establish the existence of an original shorter text. His collection of items missing from I Esd as compared to the M T amounts to 400 words. I Esd, however, is not the reflection of this original shorter text. It too underwent changes including additions which amount to about the same number of the missing elements (pp. 18, 213). Consequently, there

134

I Esdras

must have been an original shorter text which grew into I Esd on the one hand and the M T on the other (p. 273).

201

Klein gathers all the relevant

details, explains them in a certain way, and, accordingly, classifies them into categories. He thus arrives at his conclusions. In my view, many details were misconstrued and, therefore, set in the wrong categories. The consequences drawn are, thus, inaccurate. Let us look at the first five examples in his first chapter which presents minuses in I Esd supported by other textual witnesses. 1. 1:1 ( 2 C h r 3 5 : l ) MT: nvo o>»n‫׳‬3

ΙΠ‫׳‬Ϊ‫׳‬Ν‫־‬

w‫׳‬v

L X X : m i έττοίησεν Ίιοσίας τό φάσεχ, I Esd: και ήγαγεν Ί ω σ ί α ς το πάσχα έν Ιερουσαλήμ. Klein argues that since ο ^ ι τ η is not represented in the L X X and is transposed in I Esd, it must be a gloss inserted at a later stage in both the M T and I Esd; only, this was done at different points in the sentence. This is not necessarily the right conclusion: first of all, there is no evidence that I Esd's Vaiiage was shorter. In addition, it is not self-evident that the shorter text is the original one. Generally speaking, independent additions of the same glosses are not very likely to occur. Apparatuses in critical editions show, rather, that there is a correlation between omissions and transpositions: while an item is missing in certain MSS, it is transposed in others. The technical condition of the text must have caused both the omission and the transposition. 2, 1:4 (35:4) MT: nnDmi. LXX: και δια χειρός. I Esd: και κατά τήι‫ ׳‬μεγαλειότητα. ‫־‬

m

The main discrepancy is between these two; although, the L X X also presents some pluses and minuses which show that its Vorlage did not suffer all the expansions characteristic of the M T , on the one hand, but attracted some expansions of its own, on the other (ibid).

Vorlage

135

As Klein himself notes, this is not a case of a shorter / longer text, but of variants: ‫ במכתב‬in the M T against ‫ביד‬, which is reflected in both I Esd and the L X X (cf. pp. 126, 189). Since the text never existed without both elements there is no reason why it should appear in Klein's lists as a case among minuses in I Esd. 3. 1:6 (35:6) MT:‫והתקדשו והכינו‬. L X X : και τά άγια ετοιμάσατε. I Esd: και τ ά ς θυσίας ετοιμάσατε. Klein comments that the waw is missing before the second verb and the first word is read as ‫ והקדשים‬instead of ‫והתקדשו‬. The moment the reading is ‫ והקדשים‬it becomes the subject of the following verb, which cannot, therefore, be preceded by a waw. At any rate, this is hardly a case of a shorter text, as suggested by Klein. 4 1:7,8 (35:8) MT:‫ נתנו‬...‫ הרימו‬...‫ ושריו לנדבה‬.‫ א ל ה מרכוש המלך‬. L X X : ταύτα άπό της υπάρξεως του βασιλέως. και οί άρχοντες αυτού άπήρξαντο... έδωκεν... και έδωκαν. I Esd: ταύτα εκ των βασιλικών εδόθη κ α τ ' έπαγγελίαν... και έδωκεν. The texts present syntactical difficulties and a different word-order, but there is scarcely any evidence of a shorter text, as suggested by Klein. The word ‫ ושריו‬is not missing in I Esd. It was taken together with the preceding words, and the entire phrase - ‫ מרכוש המלך ושריו‬- was translated as έκ των βασιλικών. This assumption is corroborated by the similar equivalent in 1:51 (36:18)‫ ו א צ ר ו ת המלך ושריו‬- και τ ά ς βασιλικάς άποθήκας. 5. 1:13 (35:14) Μ Τ : ‫כי הכהנים בני א ה ר ן‬. L X X : ότι γάρ ιερείς. I Esd: οί γάρ ιερείς.

136

I Esdras This presentation of the texts, as proposed by Klein, is misleading.

The words ‫ בני אהרן‬are not missing in I Esd. They are transposed and even expanded: MT:...‫ולכהנים כי הכהנים בני אהרן‬... 1 Esd reflects:...‫ולכהנים אחיהם בני אהרן כי הכהנים‬... A detailed consideration of the remainder of the examples cited by Klein shows that many have similar problems. Out of 49 cases of combined evidence from I Esd and the L X X , adduced by Klein, there are 20 cases (!) in which the shorter reading is clearly not attested in I Esd; and, there are some others which are doubtful. In other, smaller categories adduced by Klein: 15 cases in which I Esd is said to be corroborated by the Peshitta and 7 cases backed up by the Book of Kings, we also find some unacceptable examples. Additionally, in several cases the only missing element is a waw, a ‫כל‬, or a pronoun. Consequently, the figure of 70 cases of combined evidence (p. 76) should be taken with a grain of salt. We must also criticize the oversimplified presumption which underlies the gathering of all the minuses in different textual witnesses, as i f setting all of them aside will leave us with the original shorter text. We do accept Klein's main point that since, in some cases, I Esd is supported by other textual witnesses we should accept I Esd's evidence also in regard to other minuses which are not attested elsewhere. It is, however, no easy matter to accurately determine the genuine cases of minuses reflected in I Esd, especially considering the nature of this particular translator. It is only natural that Torrey and Klein sought to define I Esd as 02

a faithful translation* in order to enhance its credibility as a textual witness to a different text-type. Torrey (p. 83): "It is a faithful rendering, of the kind to which we are accustomed in the older parts of the Greek Old Testament". Klein (pp. 19-20): "In I Esdras... the translator followed his Vorlage clause by clause, and his omissions follow no pattern... Unless

Sec also Talshir's attempt to portray the translator as a literary translator (1982).

Vorlage

137

we suppose that the translator was faithfully rendering his Vorlage, it is difficult to see why he would copy so accurately and fully the various lists in the book... How can scholars reconcile die hypothesis that I Esdras tried to smooth out difficulties by abbreviating and translating freely with the fact that the translator often rendered a text which might have made no sense to him with great literal fidelity...". These arguments are not convincing. The fact that the translator keeps to the lists of names or that it so happens that he literally translates an obscure text does not prove a thing regarding his translation technique. General assumptions regarding the faithfulness of the translator do not suffice as a basis for the delicate task of textual criticism. Since there is a constant interrelation between the evaluation of die text in front of die translator and his practice of representing it, the only way to accurately evaluate I Esd's Vorlage is to closely analyze the methods of the translator. The following chapter, devoted to the translation, forms the foundation of our evaluation of the Vorlage here. We shall have to leave a wide grey area of doubt over cases which may either be attributed to the translator or reflect a different text. A translator who produces equivalents such as 2:23 (Ezr 4:20) ‫־־ ו מ ד ה בלו והלך מ ת י ה ב להון‬ cj>opo\oyouvTes, or 8:24 (7:26) ‫ ־־ דינה להוא מתעבד מנה‬K0Xaa9f!a‫׳‬01Ta1, is not the kind of translator who would spare every word in his Vorlage, and, thus, he should be constantly examined and re-examined. For example, in a case such as 2:18 (4:14) ‫ ~ שלחנא והודענא‬npoa4x‫׳׳‬01f|acu, is it right to argue that ‫ והודענא‬is not reflected in I Esd (Klein, p. 85)? The Greek word means 'call or speak to, address, issue directions or orders, pronounce, utter, make a report' (Liddell & Scott). It therefore covers the range of meaning of both Aramaic verbs. It serves in similar contexts and formulations in the contemporary papyri, the language of which is close to our translator's, so that he is likely to introduce it in this context of official correspondence and give up the exact representation of the words in his Vorlage. Finally,

138

I Esdras

while in 6:21 (5:17) upoatjxjveiv stands for ‫שלח‬, in 6:6 (5:5), it again renders an entire phrase, though a different one: ‫יתיבון נשתונא‬. This seems to prove that, in 2:18, we should consider npoa^coffjacu as a counterpart of ‫שלחנא והודענא‬, and not count ‫ והודענא‬as one of the minuses in the original short text. We also have to reconsider the ultimate use of the rule of lectio brevior. Indeed is every shorter text the original text? We should not speak here of cases of haplography, homoioteleuton etc. which are undoubtedly secondary. Nevertheless, a word in reference to these technical omissions is also in order. Klein (pp. 148-162) adduces 47 (!) such cases. This does not really attest to an extremely corrupt state of the text, but rather, it shows the uncritical use of these phenomena by scholars. The larger part of these examples have nothing to do with haplography, homoioteleuton or the like. Thus, I would not define the omission of ‫בית‬ from the phrases ‫ עבידת בית אלהא‬and

7:15,6:26,‫ם‬

6:7, 22), as cases of homoioteleuton considering that the phrases ‫מלאכת הי‬ (cf. 2 Chr 26:30) and ‫( עבידת אלהא‬cf. Ezr 6:18) are perfectly legitimate phrases. Generally speaking, the identification of cases of homoioteleuton - usually used for the omission of passages between similar words or phrases - as a skipping from one letter to a similar one (‫ בימ עבידת‬- ‫מלאכמ‬ ;

‫ )בית‬produces an inflation of such cases. In other cases collected by Klein in this category, the omitted elements are pleonastic ones, e.g. 8:69 (9:4-5) ‫ ובמנחת הערב‬.‫עד למנחת הערב‬, 9:16 (10.16) ‫ראשי האבות לבית אבותס‬. Is it not more plausible to explain the omission on this ground, as opposed to technical mishap? Let us return to the more fundamental issue of lectio hrevior. Is it not reasonable that the process of text transmission would include phenomena of reduction alongside expansion? For example, titles such as 'die king' could have been added to the name of the king as easily as omitted, or, similarly, an explicit noun could have been substituted by a pronoun as

Vorlage

139

well as a pronoun expanded by the explicit noun. This is also true for more complicated cases such as 8:52 (8:22); the idea of ‫ועזו ואפו על כל‬ ‫עזביו‬, not in 1 Esd, may be a later addition in the MT, but it also may have been omitted in I Esd. A fine example of a longer text which is probably the original text is that of the introduction of the letter of complaint to Artaxerxes. Klein analyzes this text of 2:15-16 (Ezr 4:6-11) in detail (pp. 140-148) in an attempt to arrive at the original shorter text, yet he does not answer two questions: 1) How can we use 1 Esd as a witness to the secondary nature of the list of the inhabitants of Samaria (Ezr 4:9 ‫ דיניא וארפסתכיא‬etc.) when I Esd has a remnant of this very list, 2:16 κρίται which reflects 2?‫)דיניא‬Realistically, is the well-structured introduction in I Esd to be preferred in comparison with the cluttered double opening in the M T . 2:15 (4:7-8)? In the M T , the first letter is said to have been written by Bishlam, Mitredath and Tabel, the second by Rehum and Shimshai. I Esd combines all the names together as an introduction to the following letter; although, it clearly involves only Rehum and Shimshai, also according to I Esd, 2:21, 25 (4:17, 23). We do not argue that the M T is the original text, but I Esd revises a text already formulated as the M T (see pp. 36-38). A simpler example would be that of 1:48 (2 Chr 36:15). The M T reads ‫ השכם ושלוח‬whereas I Esd has μετακαλέσαι αυτούς. The following verse introduces several combined participles (...‫ )ויהיו מלעבים‬which clearly advance a repeated action, thus advocating the reading of ‫השכם ושלוח‬ which initiates the iterative nature of the passage. The MT's ‫ השכם‬...‫וישלח‬ ...‫ ויהיו מלעבים‬...‫ ושלוח‬is, therefore, the original text. The different reading in I Esd resulted from misreading ‫ השכם‬as ‫השכם‬, followed by the omission of ‫ושלוח‬. The shorter text, then, is the secondary one. Similarly, 1:10 (2 Chr 35:10); after the king issued his orders regarding the work of the priests and Levites, the M T appropriately concludes with ‫ותכון העבודה‬ ‫" ויעמדו הכהנים על עמדם והלוים על מ ח ל ק ו ת ם כמצות המלך‬When the service

1 Esdras

140

had been prepared for, the priests stood in their place, and the Levites in their divisions according to the king's command". In I Esd, ‫ כמצות‬was misread as ‫ב^צות‬, and ‫ המלך‬was consequently omitted. Again, the longer text is the original one. Our comments above were orientated towards the evaluation of the shorter text in I Esd, but they also pertain to the evaluation of longer texts in I Esd (Klein's fourth chapter). One wonders why certain expansions are attributed to the translator. Why would it be the translator who gave up the representation of the second verb in 1:46 (2 Chr 36:13) ‫ויקש א ת ערפו‬ ‫ ;ויאמץ א ת לבבו‬whereas, the omission of the pleonastic ‫ ווזות בטלא‬in 2:25 (Ezr 4:24 ...‫ והות בטלא עד‬...‫ )באדין בטלת עבידת בית אלהא‬happened in the transmission of the Vorlage (p. 85)? Why is it the translator who added a verb before the second object in 1:4 (2 Chr 35:3 ‫עבדו את ה׳ אלהיכם ו א ת עמו‬ ‫ ;)ישראל‬whereas, 6 K0n‫־‬aa1CT|v16aas instead of ‫ אשר‬in 2:5 (Ezr 1:3 ‫ה ו א‬ ‫ )האלהים אשר בירושלם‬is an addition in the Vorlage (pp. 248, 256)? It is not only a matter of disagreement in details since the change in the evaluation of details causes a great shift in their classification. We adduced above the extreme example of many cases of homoioteleuton which have to be distributed in other categories. In this chapter, too, Klein adduces an overloaded category of 70 cases (!) of double translations (pp. 227ff), a third of which belong in other categories. The starting point for Klein's classification of the many pluses-minuses is indicative of his method. He defines the pluses in the M T as follows: pluses caused by double readings; inclination to add nouns, adjectives and the word ‫ ;כל‬elements borrowed from the context; or, on the other hand, omissions through haplography and stylistic omissions (chapter 2). The pluses in I Esd, however, he defines from a completely different angle; in his opinion, these either represent the original text, or are nothing more than double translations or stylistic additions by the translator or (later?) expansions (chapter 4). This classification manifestly shows that Klein

Vorlage

141

a priori undertook to reduce the significance of the additions in 1 Esd as against the additions in the M T ; even though, he repeatedly admits the fact that there are no fewer pluses in I Esd than there are in the M T . Moreover, he presents the material for the pluses in I Esd and the M T separately presuming no affinity between the parallel phenomena of expansion. Therefore, he may conclude in a later article (1969) as follows: "In a recent study of the Greek text of I Esdras we argued that it frequently reflected an old, often unexpanded Semitic Vorlage despite the many corruptions and secondary expansions peculiar to the 'apocryphal' text". The expansions are thus treated by separate standards: while in the cases where I Esd is shorter, it is the original, unexpanded text; in the cases where I Esd has the longer text, it represents a corrupted text or expansions characteristic of the apocryphal version, Is this, indeed, the case? Is there really such a fundamental difference between the types of expansion in I Esd and the MT? Certainly, there are some expansions characteristic of the apocryphal revision represented in I Esd, but the majority of pluses in I Esd hardly fit this category. Our case of parallel texts, as reflected in I Esd and the MT, provides an outstanding opportunity to compare parallel processes in the growth of, more or less, the same text which took different routes. Aligning the pluses reflected in I Esd with the pluses in the M T actually demonstrates these parallel processes. In order to clearly demonstrate that the texts underwent similar additions/omissions, a certain classification is needed. It would be rewarding were it possible to classify the additions/omissions in light of the reasons which caused the discrepancy between the texts, e.g., pluses borrowed from similar texts, or from the context, omissions caused by stylistic considerations, or such that are ideologically motivated, or even accidental omissions. However, such classifications would end in a very large number of categories turning the comparison between the texts ineffective. Moreover, such categorizing is necessarily subjective. It

142

I Esdras

involves presumptions such as whether a certain word was omitted or perhaps added, or whether the change was accidental or deliberate. In addition, a survey of the data shows that the majority of pluses, in both I Esd and the MT, simply serve to further define or elucidate the words to which they are added. Such items are best defined in syntactical categories which also have the advantage of an objective classification. We, therefore, adduce the data under headings such as 'adnominals', 'adverbs' etc., thus, demonstrating that the changes in die text of I Esd are not much different from those of the M T . The relation that emerges is hardly that of a later expansionist text, represented by the MT, as against an earlier shorter text, reflected in I Esd, but rather, two texts which absorbed a certain amount of additions and also experienced a number of omissions, whether accidental or deliberate. I Esd presents further changes in line with its characteristic revision. We endeavor to provide the entire relevant data, so that the relation between the texts is presented in full. In this framework, we cannot but accompany the data with only general notes and evaluations. The pluses in the M T are presented in square brackets. Pluses reflected in I Esd are reproduced in Hebrew or Aramaic. They are set in curly brackets and are underlined in order to emphasize that they are conjectured readings.

a. Function Words The difference between I Esd and the M T here lies in function-words, which mainly serve as linking words and only little effect the meaning of the text. It seems that I Esd, more than the MT, tends to add function-words, in order to improve the sequence of the text. Further, it is noticeable that in both the. M T and I Esd, there are more pluses in the Aramaic material 20

than in the Hebrew; ' even though, the Hebrew material is by far the more extensive. m

The M T has 5 cases in the Aramaic material, 2 in the Hebrew; I E s d 9 cases versus 5.

‫‪143‬‬

‫‪Vorlage‬‬ ‫‪Additional function-words‬‬

‫‪Additional function-words‬‬

‫‪in I Esd:‬‬

‫‪in the M T‬‬

‫)‪1. 1.25 (2Chr 35:21‬‬

‫)‪I. 2:18(Ezr4:14‬‬

‫‪.‬ו‪1‬עתה( אלהים‬

‫‪].‬כען[ כל קבל די מלח היכלא מלחגא‬

‫)‪2. 1:50 (36:17‬‬

‫)‪2.2:20(4:16‬‬

‫‪2).‬י( הכל נתן בידן‬

‫‪].‬לקבל דנה[ חלק בעבר נהרה‬

‫)‪3. 2:19 (Ezr 4:15‬‬

‫)‪3. 6:33 (5:3‬‬

‫•)צםנ{ מן יומת עלמא‬

‫‪].‬וכן[ אמריו להון‬

‫)‪4. 2:20 (4:16‬‬

‫)‪4. 6:6 (5:5‬‬

‫‪1‬וכען( מהודעין‬

‫‪].‬ואדין[ יתיבון נשתונא‬

‫)‪5. 2:21 (4:17‬‬

‫)‪5. 7:2 (6:13‬‬

‫‪).‬אדין( פתגמא שלח‬

‫‪].‬כנמא[ אספרנא עבדו‬

‫)‪6.6:17 (5:14‬‬

‫)‪6. 8:90 (10:3‬‬

‫‪ '2()4‬ו‬

‫‪/‬‬

‫‪}.‬ותוב‪/‬תב וי( הנפק המו‬

‫‪].‬ועתה[ גברת ברית‬

‫)‪7. 6:24 (6:3‬‬

‫)‪7. 9:14(10:15‬‬

‫‪.‬בית אלהא )‪ {n‬בירושלם‬

‫‪].‬אך[ יונתן‪ ...‬ויחזיה‪ ...‬עמדו‬

‫)‪8. 6:29 (6:9‬‬ ‫‪).‬׳ו&נ?( חנטין‬ ‫)‪9. 8:17 (7:19‬‬ ‫‪ .‬א ל ה !די ב(ירושלם‬ ‫)‪10. 8:20 (7:22‬‬ ‫‪; h.‬אף?{ עד חנטין‬ ‫)‪11. 8:44 (8:17‬‬ ‫‪.‬על עדו הראש }!י{ בכספיא המקום‬ ‫‪ to‬׳!‪αυτά. The translator may have added πάλι‬‬

‫‪The Greek reads: π ά λ ι ν έξψζγκςν‬‬

‫‪make things clearer. In addition, it is difficult to figure out the Vorlage.‬‬

144

I Esdras 12. 8:73 (9:7) ‫)בנ( מימי א ג ת י מ‬,

2‫מ‬

13.8:80 (9:11) {‫־‬22?)‫לאמר‬ ‫הארץ אשר א ת ם באים לרשתה‬. 14. 8:87 (9:15) ‫הננו)עתה( לפניך‬. 15. 8:87 (9:15) !‫כי אין לעמוד ]עוד‬.

b. Adnominals

1. Quantifiers (a) ‫כל‬ The word ‫ כל‬is frequently left out or added in the process of texttransmission. Although it is a minor element and usually insignificant, it is a good indicator of the parallel development of texts. In our case, there are 11 occurrences of ‫ כל‬in the M T which are not represented in I Esd, and, similarly, 10 cases of a ‫ כל‬probably reflected in I Esd without parallels in the M T . This does not mean that the original text lacked all 21 cases. In the course of textual transmission a trivial element such as ‫ כל‬can either be added or omitted. It should he noted that the additional ‫ כל‬in the M T are expansive by nature; whereas, in I Esd, the ‫ כל‬may have grown out of similar adjacent elements, such as ‫ אל‬and ‫על‬, in five out of ten cases. Finally, we may ask whether some of the minuses in I Esd are not to be attributed to the translator who is not very attentive where small components are concerned; thus, we do not include cases such as 8:69 (Ezr 9:4) ‫כל חרד‬ 21x5

The reconstruction is doubtful not only because OTI is a conjecture, but also because it is not represented in the B-tcxt. See commentary ad hoc.

Vorlage rendered with oaoi

145

TTOTC

eneKivoOinro, or 2:3 (1:2) ‫ הארץ‬...‫ כל‬presumably

represented by TT\S 01K0u|ie^s, in a sentence which he chose to paraphrase. Nevertheless, we assume that the cases adduced as pluses in I Esd do indicate the growth of I Esd's Vorlage; although, the evidence is not supported by other textual witnesses.

Piuses in the M T

Pluses reflected in I Esd

1. l:3(2Chr35:3)

1. 1:30 (2 Chr 35:25)

‫ל]כל[ ישראל‬.

‫( ישראל‬£‫על)ב‬.

2. 1:30 (35:25) ‫]כל[ השרים‬.

2. 1:47 (36:14) ‫( ה מ י ם‬£2)‫ככל תעבות‬.

3. 1:47 (36:14)‫]כל[ שרי‬.

3. 5:56 (Ezr 3:9) ‫}כל{ הלוים כאחד‬.

4. 1:52 (36:19) ‫תכל[ ארמנותיה‬.

206

4. 5:58 (3:11) ‫ ישראל‬£2) ‫•על‬

5. 2:5 (Ezr 1:3) ‫מ]כל[עמו‬.

5. 6:18 (5:15) ‫ מאניא‬£ ‫ א ל ) כ‬.

6. 2:8 (1:6) ‫ו]כל[ סביבתיהם‬.

6. 8:7 (7:10) ‫ב]כל( ישראל‬.

7. 2:23 (4:20) ‫ב]כל[ עבר נהרה‬.

7. 8:7 (7:10) ‫( ח ק ומשפט‬52).

8. 8:13 (7:16) ‫ב]כל[ מדינת‬,

8. 8:53 (8:23) ‫ זאת‬ßa) ‫על‬.

9. 8:19 (7:21) ‫ל]כל[גזבריא‬.

9.9:3(10:7) ‫ב)כל{ יהודה‬.

10. 8:50 (8:21)‫ול]כל[ רכושנו‬.

10. 5:49 (3:3) ‫מ)כל{ עמי הארצות‬.

11. 9:4 (10:8) ‫]כל[ רכושו‬.

M

The ·» is lacking in the L X X as well.

2 0 7

Most L X X - M S S represent b3 instead of !‫־‬N.

a

" The phrase is reflected twice in I Esd, the first time without the ! » .

208

146

IEsdras In 1:30, 47, the ‫ כל‬wandered from one phrase to another; similarly it

may wander between elements of the same phrase: 1

1:19 (2Chr 35:18)22}‫ ו]כל[ יהודה וישראל‬- ‫ י ש ר א ל‬b ‫ויהודה‬. 8:52 (Ezr 8:22) ‫ על ]כל[ מבקשיו לטובה‬- ‫על מבקשיו ל}כ& טובה‬.

(b)‫שאר‬ Out of 11 occurrences of ‫ שאר‬in our material in the M T , 4 are not represented in I Esd: 1. 2:21 (Ezr 4:17)‫ו]שאר[ כנותהון‬. 2. 5:54 (3:8) ‫ו]שאר[ א ח י ה • הכהנים‬. 3. 5:67 (4:3) ‫ו]שאר[ ראשי האבות‬, 4. 8:16 (7:18) ‫ב]שאר[ כספא ודהבה‬. Only once does ‫ שאר‬appear in I Esd without parallel in the MT: 5:8 (2:1) ‫שאר( יהודה‬1‫וישובו לירושלם י‬.

2. Pronouns (a) Pronominal suffixes Considering the divergent linguistic patterns, differences in pronouns pertain to translation technique rather than to the history of the text. Where pronouns are indispensable in Semitic languages, they are inessential in the Greek. Thus, 8:21 (Ezr 7:23) του βασιλέως και των υιών probably reflects M T ‫מלכא ובנוהי‬, even though the pronoun remains unrepresented. Of course, changes in pronouns may also occur in the original language; however, I Esd's evidence is more seriously considered when supported by other textual witnesses, e.g., 8:72 (9:6) ‫ )כי עונתינו רבו( למעלה ראש‬υπέρ τ ά ς κεφάλας ημών. In the last analysis, it seems purposeless to collect the differences regarding pronominal suffixes.

Vorlage

147

(b) Demonstratives While 1 Esd reflects only one additional demonstrative vis-a-vis the MT, the latter clearly has far more cases of demonstratives not represented in I Esd. Except for one (irregular) case in Hebrew, the rest of the cases are in the Aramaic material.

Demonstratives in the M T not represented in I Esd: 1. 2:24 (Ezr4:21)[‫וקריתא ]דך‬.

5, 6:27 (6:8)[‫בית אלהא ]דך‬.

Z 5:41 (2:65) ‫]אלה[ שבעת אלפים‬.

6. 7:6 (6:16)[‫בית אלהא ]דנה‬.

3. 6:15 (5:12) ‫וביתה ]דנה[ סתרה‬.

7, 7:7 (6:17)[‫בית אלהא ]דנה‬.

4. 6:27 (6:8)[‫שבי יהודיא ]אלך‬.

8. 8:14 (7:17)[‫בכספא ]דנה‬.

In one case, there is an additional demonstrative in 1 Esd: 6:18 (5:15) Kai

TOV

vabv

TOU

icuptou

TOOTOI> 01K080p.r)9f)va1 ~

‫( יתבנא‬nn) ‫ובית אלהא‬.

(c) Noun / Pronoun This category is not strictly a matter of pluses/minuses, for the pronoun, rather, replaces the explicit noun or, vice versa, is expanded by the explicit noun. I Esd, more than the MT, tends to prefer the pronoun where the noun has already been mentioned. 1. 1:30 (2 Chr 35:25)

5. 8:26 (7:28)

MT:‫( על יאשיהו‬...‫)על יאשיהו‬.

MT: ‫{ שרי המלך‬...‫)לפני המלך‬.

1 Esd reflects:‫עליו‬.

I Esd reflects:‫שריו‬.

2, 1:49 (36:16)

6. 1:48 (2 Chr 36:15)

MT: ‫במלאכי האלהים‬.

M T : ‫( על ע מ ו‬...‫)עליהם‬.

I Esd reflects:‫( במלאכיו‬cf. L X X ) .

I Esd reflects: ‫עליהם‬.

148

I Esdras

3. 1:49(36:16)

7.6:25 (Ezr 6:5)

M T : ‫חמת ה ׳‬.

MT: ‫בבית אלהא‬.

I Esd reflects:‫חמתו‬.

I Esd reflects: ‫תמה‬.

4.8:25 (Ezr7:27) M T : ‫( א ת בית ה ׳‬...‫)ברוך ה׳‬. I Esd reflects:‫ א ת ביתו‬. Since the probability that a prepositional phrase was replaced by a pronoun is not greater than the probability that a pronoun was expanded to make things clearer, it is not possible to decide which variant is the original. In the following cases where the change is not merely stylistic, it seems that the longer version preserved in the M T is the original one: 8. 8:11 (Ezr 7:14) MT: ‫( מן ק ד • מלכא‬...‫)מני שים טעם‬. I Esd reflects:‫מן קדמי‬. 7:15)8:13 .9) MT:‫די מלכא ויעטהי התנדבו‬. I Esd ά ηύξάμην έ γ ώ τε και οί φίλοι may reflect a different text such as ‫( די התנדבת אנא מעטי‬cf. the Peshitta). Since the king is the speaker, the reference to the king is replaced by a pronoun in the first person. The official language of the royal letters tends, rather, to explicitly refer to the king, even though, the king is the sender; thus, in the same letter, we read ‫ ודתא די מלכא‬...‫ על מלכות מלכא ובנוהי‬...‫( מן בית גנזי מלכא‬Ezr 7:20, 23, 26; cf. also Ezr 6:8, 10). 10. 8:90 (10:3) MT:‫( כעצת אדןי‬...‫)ויאמר לעזרא‬. I Esd: ώς εκρίθη σοι =‫כעצתך ־‬. The vocalization that yielded this pronoun is rather:‫( אדני‬cf. LXX).

149

Vorlage

In the following cases the pronoun is represented in the M T whereas I Esd is more explicit: 1. 2:25 (Ezr4:23) M T : ‫ על יהודיא ובטלו( ה מ ו‬...‫)אזלו‬. I Esd: 5:5)

TOUS

oiKoSopoOvTas ~ ‫לבניא‬.

6:6

.2)

M T : ‫)על שבי יהודיא ולא בטלו( ה מ ו‬. I EsdTfjsr oiKoSopfjs =

‫לבנינא‬.

In both cases,‫ המו‬refers to ‫שבי יהודיא‬/‫יהודיא‬. Its substitution by 'the builders' or 'the building' changes the content of the pronoun. For this reason, one has to surmise that I Esd offers the secondary variants. Considering that these cases are located one beside the odier in the MT, but not in I Esd, one wonders whether the changes had not been made before the material was rearranged to meet the special literary needs of I Esd (see also p. 153). 3. 8:78 (9:9) MT: ‫)לרומס את בית אלהינו ולהעמיד את( חרבתיו‬. I Esd rather reflects ‫חרבות ציון‬. The introduction of the city, beside the Temple, is characteristic of I Esd (see pp. 49ff). Similarly, the Temple is inserted into the complaint letter which, in its original version, spoke of nothing but the building of the city: 4. 2:17 (4:12) MT:(‫ בנין ושוריא שכלילו( ואשיא )יחיטו‬...‫)קריתא‬. I Esd: icai ‫׳‬1a‫׳‬01 unopaXXoi/Tai seems to reflect ‫ואשי היכלא‬, presumably replacing a form ‫( ואשיה‬cf. the additional pronoun in the LXX: KO.1 GepeXLous au-rris). m

It may, of course, be a case of interchange between a simple noun and a construct, cf. 5:51 (Ezr 3:5) M T : ‫מועדי ה׳‬, I Esd simply reflects ‫ראשי האבות‬, I Esd has only an equivalent for ‫ראשים‬.

10:16)

9:16 ;‫ )המועדים‬M T :

150

I Esdras In sum, the pluses reflected in I Esd are later expansions probably

connected with the book's special revision. Some of the minuses in I Esd, those which are not merely stylistic, also seem to be secondary. Where stylistic interchanges are concerned, there is no way to decide which variant is to be preferred.

(d) Appositions Appositions, per definitionem components which do not change either the meaning or the structure of a text, are liable to be one of the elements which form the gap between longer and shorter texts. A writer who is more expansive in his writing will tend to use appositions frequently; whereas, a more concise writer will give them up. First, we adduce the titles which often serve as appositions in our text, such as 'king', 'prophet', and 'priest'. Additional appositions

Additional appositions

in the M T

in I Esd

1. 1:43 (2 Chr 36:10)

1. 6:33 (Ezr 6:12)

‫]המלך! נבוכדנאצר‬.

!‫אנא דריוש )מלכא‬.

2. 5:68 (Ezr 4:3)

2. 1:30 (2 Chr 35:25)

tna •pn vy‫־‬i‫־‬D [pan].

!‫ הנביא‬1 ‫ירמיהו‬.

3. 5:70 (4:5) [una pa] w i m mo^n ‫־־‬y‫׳‬.

4. 6:7 (5:6)[‫לדריוש ]מלכא‬. 5.6:1 (5:1)

3. 7:3 (Ezr 6:14)

‫חגי ]נביא! וזכריה בר עדו נבייא‬.

!‫בנבואת חגי וזכריה בר עדוא )נבייא‬.

6. 7:3 (6:14) ‫בנבואת חגי ]נביה[ וזכריה בו־ עדוא‬.

151

Vorlage 7.8:3 (7:11)

4 9:39 (Neh8:l)

‫לעזרא הכהן ]הספר[ ספר‬.

‫ה?ןזן( והספר‬1 ‫לעזרא‬.

8.9:7(10:10)

5. 9:42 (Neh 8:4)

[‫עזרא ]הכהן‬.

‫עזרא )הכהן( וספר‬.

In some of the cases in which the title is not represented in I Esd the M T is indeed pleonastic, thus, (2) ‫( ;המלך כורש מלך פרס‬3) ‫ועד מלכות דריוש‬ ‫( ;מלך פרס‬5) ‫ נבייא‬...‫( ;חגי נביא וזכריה‬7) ...‫לעזרא הספר ספר‬. Indeed, regarding cases (2) and (3) other translations also leave out the title. Proper names are added in the following cases, mostly in I Esd: 6. 1:32 (2 Chr 36:1) ‫)יאשיהו( אביו‬. ‫נ‬

6:24.7(Ezr 6:4) ‫מן בית )כורש( מלכא‬. "‫'־‬ 9. 7:3 (6:14)[‫וזכריה ]בר עדוא‬.

8. 5:56 (3:8)(‫}ו(קדמיאל )אחיו‬.

10. 9:49 (Neh 8:9)

9. 5:40 (2:63)

‫]נחמיה הוא[ התרשתא‬.

‫)?חמיה זו?(התרשתא‬.

The identification of the Tirshata as Nehemiah in the M T , on the one hand, and in I Esd, on the other, may have wider imphcations than the categories referred to here and should possibly be explained on other grounds than the natural growth of the texts (see note 14). Other appositions, not connected with private names, may have been added or omitted for different reasons and they are not all of the same importance to the understanding of the growth of the text. We are mostly dealing with stylistic alternatives which are part of the natural course of a transmitted text, 11. 1:51 (2 Chr 36:18)

10. 8:56 (8:27)

‫ ]הכל[ הביא בבל‬...‫כל כלי‬.

‫ )כלים( שנים עשר‬...‫וכלי נחשת‬.

210

The addition of the name seems to he secondary since the text means to say that the expenses are on the royal treasury, not specifically on King Cyrus.

152

I Esdras

12. 2:14

1:12)

11. 7:10 (6:19)

‫ ]הכל[ העלה‬...‫וכל כלים‬.

‫ויעשו)בני ישראל( בני הגולה‬.

13. 8:63 (8:35)

12. 1:1 ( 2 C h r 3 5 : l )

[‫הבאים מהשבי ]גני הגולה‬.

‫בארבעה עשר}יום( לחדש‬.

14. 1:7(2 0 * 3 5 : 7 )

13-15.8:47, 54 (Ezr8:19,24) 2

2

‫]צאן[ כבשים ובני עזים‬. "

!‫ א ח י ו ובניהם עשרים }הזכרים‬. '

15. 9:48

16. 5:8 (2:2)

(^11

8:8)

‫]בספר[ בתורת האלהים‬.

!‫ )ראשיהם‬...‫זרבבל וישוע‬.

16. 1:44 ( 2 0 ‫ ז ו‬36:10)

17. 5:36(2:59)

[‫צדקיהו ]אחיו‬.

213

2

2 4

‫!ראשם! כרוב‬. '

18-19.1:12-13 (2 Chr 35:14) (

2

1

5

.‫!אחיהם‬

‫ולכהנים‬ 216

5:56.20(Ezr 3:9){ .‫וקדמיאל}&חע‬

16,14,4:1 6:8, 20-21 (5:8,17)‫מרא)נ(א! מלכא‬1.

211

This may involve more than a mere apposition.

215

This accords with the rest of the list.

2 1 3

Note 2 Kgs 24: !9 ‫וימלך מלך בבל א ת מתניה דדו ת ח ת י ו‬.

2

4

‫ י‬I Esd repeatedly emphasizes the leadership of the mentioned figures; in 5:8 (Ezr 2:2) it is specified again, when, against the M T ‫ מ ס פ ר אנשי עם ישראל‬, I E s d probably reflects: (‫ מ ס פ ר אנשי ה ע ם )וראשיהם‬.

m

It may be an addition in 1 E s d , where the relationship between the priests and Levites is slightly revised, see pp. 175-176. The designation ‫ בני אהרן‬may also have caused the addition.

2

"' The verse has many textual problems and the addition/omission may be one of them.

Vorlage

153

The last case mentions seven times in which the title of the king (‫ )מלכא‬is expanded in I Esd (e.g., Kupie fktaiXeit). It is, therefore, a somewhat different case from the regular line of appositions. The expansion occurs in two different parts of I Esd (though not necessarily so in the arrangement of the material according to the M T ; see also p. 149). It is also worth mentioning that the expanded title also occurs in the epilogue to the Story of the Youths, 4:46, a fact that may connect the expansion with the layer of revision characteristic of the apocryphal book. At any rate, it is a radier systematic change wherever the King of Persia is addressed by his servants. One cannot be absolutely sure whether the change was indeed made in the Vorlage or should be attributed to the translator, considering that it is a regular appellation of gods and kings in contemporary Greek papyri. While the translator is sensitive to 'royal language', he is hardly expected to add such elements repeatedly. Indeed, the title is no less expected in Aramaic, cf. Dan 4:21 (RSV 4:24) :‫דנה פשרא מלכא וגזרת עלאה ה י א ד מ ט ת על מרי )כת‬ ‫" מראי( מלכא‬this is the interpretation, O king; It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king" (see also Dan 4:16). It is a common sight in Imperial Aramaic, e.g., Cowley 16, line 8 ‫קדם מראי שלחת‬ ‫ " לאמר‬I before my lord I have sent saying", regularly in addressing Arsham; see also Cowley 30, line 1: ‫" אל מראן בגוהי פ ח ת יהוד‬To our Lord Bigvai, governor of Judaea". It seems more likely that the title was added in I Esd's Vorlage than omitted in the MT.

(e) Construct State

One way to define the significance of a word more clearly is to turn it into a construct by appending either a nomen rectum or a nomen regens. Usually, the annexed elements neither add new aspects to the word nor substantially change its meaning.

‫‪154‬‬

‫‪I Esdras‬‬

‫‪(1) Nomen rectum‬‬ ‫‪Pluses reflected in I Esd‬‬

‫‪Pluses in the M T‬‬

‫)‪1. 1:30 (2 Chr 35:25‬‬

‫)‪1. 1:7 (2Chr35:7‬‬

‫‪.‬לחק על כל )‪ hai‬ישראל‬

‫‪.‬ל]בני[ העם‬

‫)‪2:7.2(Ezr 1:5‬‬

‫)‪2. 5:28 (Ezr 2:42‬‬

‫‪.‬ל!שבט( יהודה ובנימו‬

‫‪].‬בני[ השערים‬

‫)‪3.5:63 (4:1‬‬

‫)‪3. 1:51 (2 Chr 36:18‬‬

‫‪.‬צרי)^בק( יהודה ובנימן‬

‫‪.‬ואצרות ]בית[ הי‬

‫)‪4. 9:5 (10:9‬‬

‫)‪4. 5:56 (Ezr 3:8‬‬

‫‪.‬אנשי}שבנו{ יהודה ובנימן‬

‫‪.‬מלאכת ]בית[ ה׳‬

‫)‪5.6:16 (5:13‬‬

‫)‪5. 7:15 (6:22‬‬

‫‪ .‬די}מדעת{ בבל‬

‫‪.‬במלאכת ]בית[ האלהים‬

‫)‪6. 8:76 (9:8‬‬

‫)‪6. 8:15 (7:17‬‬

‫‪.‬להאיר עינינו)בבית( אלהינו‬

‫‪.‬על מדבחה די ]בית[ אלהכם‬

‫)‪7. 1:46 (2 Chr 36:13‬‬

‫)‪7. 8:21 (7:23‬‬

‫‪.‬השביעו ב)שם{ אלהינו‬

‫‪,‬יתעבז־ אדרזדא ל]בית[ אלהא‬

‫)‪8. 1:46 (36:13‬‬

‫)‪8. 9:52 (Neh 8:9‬‬

‫"־‪.‬משוב אל};תורתז{ ה׳‬

‫‪.‬כי ]חדות[ ה׳ ה י א מעזכם‬

‫)‪9. 1:45 (36:12‬‬

‫)‪9. 1:43 (2 Chr 36:10‬‬

‫י‬

‫‪.‬מלפני ‪1‬דברי[ ירמיהו‬

‫‪.‬כלי ]חמדת[ בית ה׳‬

‫‪' The expansion here may be attributed to the translator, who may have had to add ra‬‬ ‫‪vo\u\xa after using his favorite verb trapapau'fiv.‬‬

155

Vorlage 10. 8:55 (Ezr 8:25)

10. 5:70 (Ezr 4:5)

‫הכלים ]תרומת[ מ ת אלהינו‬,

‫כל ימי}ר!״{ כ ורש‬,

11. 6:4 (5:4)

11. 6:14 (5:12)

‫מן אנון ]שמהת[ גבריא‬.

218

‫מלךבבל}מ^{כסדאה‬.

12. 7:5 (6:15) ‫ל]מלכות[ דריוש מלך פרס‬. 13. 8:59 (8:30) ‫ ]משקל[ הכסף והזהב‬...‫וקבלו‬. 9:39.14(Neh 8:1) ‫להביא א ת ]ספר[ תורת משה‬. 9:41.15(Neh 8:3) ‫ א ל ]ספר[ התורה‬. 9:50.16(Neh 8:9) ‫ ]דברי[ התורה‬m. The additional elements do not have much in common; only a few may be grouped together. Thus, some specify the members of the collective noun (‫ גגי השערים‬,‫עי העם‬.), others its character (‫ שבט‬,‫ מדינת בבל‬,‫ ישראל‬ni 220

.(‫יהודה ובנימן‬

The divine name is repeatedly expanded, probably in order

to avoid phrases directly linked to God (‫ אלהים‬gyj ,‫אלהים‬/‫יוג הי‬3)• The repeated creation of the phrase ‫האלהים‬/‫' ]בית[ הי‬the house of God" in the M T apparently breaks the balance between the two texts; otherwise, there seems to be no fundamental difference in the development of the parallel texts in respect to the creation of constructs.

:iS

::

One would not expect

nnov near

p which refers to N‫־׳‬m.

' While the M T refers to the Chaldean (adj.) king of Babylon, I Esd speaks of the king of Babylon, the king of the Chaldeans (noun; see the Ketiv: rrnra).

M

' l Esd's repeated additional 'tribe' seems out of place, introducing, like other apocryphal books, tribal terminology into a period in which it was defunct. Note that I Esd traces Zerubbabel's descent to the tribe of Judah in the Story of the Three Youths, 5:3.

156

I Esdras

(2) Genitival Attributes Pluses in the M T

Pluses reflected in I Esd

1. 1:3 (2 • ‫ ע‬- 35:3)[‫ מ ל ן ]ישראל‬.

1. 2:12

2. 5:43

2. 6:22 (6:1) ‫בבית ספריא די גנזיא‬

2:68) [‫בית ]האלהים‬.

2 : 1 2 ) ( ‫מחלפים ) ט פ‬.

(‫א‬,‫)די מלכ‬. 3. 5:62 (3:13)[‫קול תרועת ]השמחה‬.

3. 8:17 (7:19)(‫די?י<ז ^להא‬1 ‫ומאניא‬.

4. 5:70 (4:5)[‫כורש מלך ]פרס‬.

4. 9:42 (Neh 8:4)(‫ספר !התורה‬.

5. 6:17 ( 5 : 1 4 ) [ 9 : 4 5.5.‫להיכלא ]דיבבל‬ 6. 8:69 (9:4)[‫על מעל ]הגולה‬.

6. 9:48 (Neh 8:7)[<‫לתור]ה«ת{ ]\ז‬.

In two cases, an internal-construct (figura etymologica) disappears from I Esd through the omission of either the nomen regens or the nomen rectum: 7. 5:40 (2:63) ‫מ]קדש[ הקדשים‬. 8. 8:9 (7:2)[‫ארתחשסתא מ ל ן ]מלכיא‬. Some of the expansions may have been induced by the context, for example, (‫כסף‬1 ‫ מחלפים‬,[‫ תרועת ]השמחה‬,[‫הנולה‬1 ‫מעל‬, others yield common phrases, such as (‫ מאניא )די בית אלהא‬,[‫ בית ]האלהים‬,[‫מלך ]ישראל‬. The pattern of parallel expansion of the text becomes obvious with a case such as the repeated creation of the phrase ‫ספר התורה‬, which occurs twice in I Esd with the addition of ‫התורה‬, and twice in the M T with the addition of ‫ספר‬ (see above, under the additions of the nomen rectum).

157

Vorlage (f) Relative Clauses

The nomen may be more expressly defined by supplemental relative clauses. These usually add little to the meaning of the text. In addition, their detached position in the sentence turns them into elements which are easily added or omitted. Pluses in the M T

Pluses reflected in I Esd

1. 2:15 (Ezr 4:11)

1. 1:31 (2Chr35:26)

[‫פרשגן אגרוךא ]די שלחו עלוהי‬.

(‫דברי יאשיהו ]אשר עשה‬.

2. 8:55 (8:25)

2. 1:45 (36:12)

[‫וכל ישראל!הנמצאים‬.

‫דברי ירמיהו)&׳צב ע ר { מפי ה׳‬.

3. 8:13 (7:15)

3. 2:15 (Ezr 4:7)

[‫ ]די בירושלם משכנה‬...‫לאלה‬.

221

?‫ יתבין בעץמרין‬21)‫כנותיו‬. 4. 2:19 (4:15) (‫ דנה‬£2 322 ‫ בספר דכרניא )בי‬. 5. 5:53 (3:7) ‫כרשיון)אשר כתב עליהם( כורש‬.

And some shortened relative clauses: 4. 8:23 (7:25)[‫כחכמת א ל ה ן )די בידך‬. 6. 8:17 (7:19)(‫די בירושלם‬1 ‫בית אלהן‬. 8:21) 8:50

.7)

k m ‫ולטפנו)אשב‬.

8. 8:90 (10:3)(‫נשינו)אשר מעמי הארצות‬. 221

m

1 Esd .simply reflects ‫ לירושלם‬instead of the relative clause. Assuming that τάς

6 K τ ω ν α λ λ ο γ ε ν ώ ν is a defective rendering of ‫עמי הארצות‬

(usually translated as τ ά α λ λ ο γ ε ν ή ε θ ν η της

γ % ) . It may, however, reflect

‫הנכריות‬, as attested by the Lucianic M S S in the L X X (although it will, again, be an unusual equivalent).

I Esdras

158

In all, there are only a few cases of additional relative clauses; nevertheless, I Esd seems to be more expansive in this regard than the MT.

(g) Varia Pluses in the MT

Pluses reflected in I Esd

1. 1:7 (2 Chr 35:7)

1.9:11 (Ezr 10:13)

‫]למספר[ שלשים אלף‬.

‫והמלאכה }עלינו( לא ליום אחד‬.

2. 5:50 (Ezr 3:4)[‫ועלת יום ביום ]במספר‬. 3. 9:16 (10:16)[‫אנשים ראשי האבות ]לבית אבתם‬, Surprisingly, there is only one case of an additional attributive adjective: 4. 8:26 (

7

:

2

6

)

[

2

)

1:34 .2 ‫שרי המלך ]הגברים‬

c. Verbal Complements Similar to the adnominals, the verbal complements too are a main factor in (lie growth of the text; they serve to better define the limits of the verb.

1. Objects The additional objects either derive from the context, or are strictly internal objects, or merely retrospective pronouns.

‫‪159‬‬

‫‪Vorlage‬‬ ‫‪Pluses reflected in I Esd‬‬

‫‪Pluses in the M T‬‬

‫)‪1. 1:6 (2 Chr 35:6‬‬

‫)‪1. 1:23 (2 Chr 35:23‬‬

‫‪.‬לעשות )את הפסח(‬

‫'•"‪.‬הכין יאשיהו ]את הבית[‬

‫‪.‬נתנו לפסחים )‪ ...(JNM‬ובקר )‪2. 1:8 (35:8‬‬

‫‪.‬וישלח הי‪] ...‬עליהם[)‪2. 1:48 (36:15‬‬

‫‪35:9)1:9‬‬

‫)‪3. 2:25 (Ezr 4:23‬‬

‫)‪.3‬‬ ‫‪224‬‬

‫‪.‬אזלו‪] ...‬על יהודיא[‬

‫‪.‬הרימו לפסחים )צאו(‪ ...‬ובקר‬ ‫)‪.4) 4. 1:27 (35:22‬‬ ‫‪.‬נכו‪ ...‬ויבא להלחם )ם(‬

‫‪.‬ויכינו המזבח‪ ...‬ויעלו ]עליו[‬

‫)‪.5) 5. 1:33 (36:3‬‬ ‫‪225‬‬

‫‪3:8) 5:49‬‬

‫‪.‬ויסירהו‪) ...‬ממלך( בירושלם‬

‫‪4:4) 5:69‬‬ ‫‪.‬עם יהודה ומבהלים ]אותם[‬ ‫‪5:15) 6:18‬‬

‫)‪.6)6. 1:35 (36:4‬‬

‫‪.‬אל מ א מ א שא‪ ...‬א ח ת ]המו[‬

‫‪.‬וימלך‪) ...‬מלך( על יהודה‬ ‫)‪.7) 7. 6:11 (Ezr 5:10‬‬

‫‪6:9) 6:29‬‬

‫‪ .‬להודעותך די נכתב)לב(‬

‫‪.‬כמאמר כהניא‪ ...‬להוא מתיהב ]להם[‬

‫‪8:29) 8:58‬‬

‫) ‪6:21) 8 . 7 : 1 3‬‬

‫)‪.8‬‬

‫‪.‬עד תשקלו)אותם(‬ ‫‪.‬בני ישראל‪ ...‬וכל הנבדל‪] ...‬אלהם[‬ ‫‪.‬לשמע )‪ m‬התורה()‪9:40.9(Neh 8:2‬‬

‫‪.‬ויקרא ]בו[)‪9.9:41 (Neh 8:3‬‬

‫‪.‬וכפתחו)את התורה()‪9:46.10(Neh 8:5‬‬

‫‪.‬מבינים ]את העם[)‪9:48.10(Neh 8:7‬‬

‫)‪9:54.11(Neh 8:12‬‬

‫)‪6:23.11(Ezr 6:3‬‬

‫ולשלח מנות )לאיו נ‪2‬ינ &‪1‬‬

‫אתר די דבחין ]דבחץ[‬

‫‪~' The omission here may have been induced by general issues of composition; see‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪pp. 14-15.‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪ in vv, 8-9 effaces the distinction intended by the M T .‬צאן ‪ " The addition of‬י־‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪, which is attested in the parallel text of‬ממלך ‪ The text is in fact defective without‬י־‬ ‫‪2 Kgs 23:33.‬‬

‫‪I Esdras‬‬

‫‪160‬‬ ‫‪2. Adverbs‬‬ ‫‪Pluses reflected in I Esd‬‬

‫‪Pluses in the M T‬‬

‫)‪1. l:5(2Chr35:5‬‬

‫)‪1. l:7(2Chr35:7‬‬

‫‪.‬ועמדו‪;] ...‬על עמדכם?(‬

‫‪.‬וירם‪] ...‬לפסחים[‬

‫‪ .‬ה ע ב י ר ו נ י ) ‪ u‬המערכה[)‪2. 1:28 (35:23‬‬

‫‪.‬הביא‪] ...‬לבבל[)‪1 1:39 (36:7‬‬

‫‪.‬ויעבירוהו!מהרה( )‪3. 1:28 (35:24‬‬

‫‪ .‬מ ל ן ]בירושלם[)‪3. 1:44 (36:11‬‬

‫)‪4. 5:40 (Ezr 2:63‬‬ ‫‪.‬עד עמוד כהן)זלמש!(‬

‫)‪4. 2:22(Ezr4:18‬‬ ‫‪].‬מפרש[ קרי קדמי‬

‫‪.‬עלות !למועד()‪5. 5:49 (3:3‬‬

‫‪.‬ויעשו‪] ...‬דבר יום ביומו[)‪5, 5:50 (3:4‬‬

‫‪.‬ככתוב !בתורה()‪6.5:50 (3:4‬‬

‫‪.‬מבן‪] ...‬ומעלה[)‪6. 5:56 (3:8‬‬

‫)‪7. 6:29 (6:9‬‬

‫)‪7.5:60(3:12‬‬

‫‪ .‬ת ה ו א מתיהבא‪) ...‬ו?מיד שנה בשנה(‬

‫‪.‬ראו‪] ...‬בעיניהם[‬

‫‪!.‬כדנה( יתעבד )‪8. 6:33 (6:12‬‬

‫‪.‬יתבקר‪1 ...‬תמה[)‪8.6:20(5:17‬‬

‫)‪9-10.8:13 (7:16‬‬

‫)‪9. 6:22 (6:1‬‬

‫‪.‬די תהשכח‪) ...‬לאלה לירושלם(‬

‫‪.‬מהחתץ]תמה[‬ ‫‪.‬ועבדו‪] ...‬בחדוה[)‪10. 7:6 (6:16‬‬

‫‪.‬עד למנחת הערב‪ .‬ו]במנחת הערב( קמתי )‪11. 8:70 (9:5‬‬ ‫‪.‬ו]עמהם[ זקני עיר ועיר )‪12. 9:13 (10:14‬‬ ‫‪,‬והעם ]על עמדם[)‪ 8:7‬ו‪13. 9:48 (1^1‬‬ ‫‪],‬בשמחה[ כי שמחם ה׳ )‪14. 7:14 (£31 6:22‬‬ ‫‪].‬כי עבדים אנחנו[ ובעבדתנו)‪15. 8:76 (9:9‬‬

161

Vorlage

Some of the additional adverbs endow the text with a special meaning or atmosphere (e.g., ‫ ג ח ד ו ה‬,‫ )מפרש‬and are not expected to be left out or added casually. In the majority of cases, however, they are dispensable, repeating or expanding other elements in the text.

d. Subjects and Predicates Similar to the subordinate elements adduced above, the texts also differ in subjects and predicates, but, again, without changing anything fundamental in the meaning of the text.

Pluses in the M T

Pluses reflected in I Esd

1. 1:46 (2Chr 36:13)

1. 1:4(2Chr35:3)

‫עבדו א ת ה׳ אלהיכם‬

‫ויקש את ערפו‬

.‫)ושרתו( א ת עמו ישראל‬

.‫]ויאמץ[ את לבבו‬

The similarity between these two cases is striking. Nevertheless, the case of ‫ ויאמץ‬is merely stylistic, and may be either an addition or an omission; whereas, ‫ ושרתו‬seems to be an ideological addition meant to distinguish between serving the people and worshipping God.

2. 2:25 ( E z r 4 : 2 4 ) [ ‫ ]ווזות ב ט ל א‬...‫בטלת‬. 2. 1:23 (35:20) ‫)בנצנ( להלחם‬-‫עלה״‬. 2:25 3:10)

4.5:57 [‫ ]להתענות‬...‫ואקרא שם צום‬.

(‫להלל א ת ה׳)ולחדות‬.

5.8:71(9:6)

5.6:12(5:11)

‫ פני אליך‬...[‫ ]להרים‬...‫בשתי‬.

‫אלה )עבד! שמיא וארעא‬.

6. 5:41 (2:65)

6.6:15(5:12)

‫]ולהם[ משרדים ומשדרות‬.

(‫וביתה דנה סתרו)ושרפו‬.

.3 (8:21)4.8:49)

3. 5:56

162

1 Esdras

7. 2:19(4:15)

7. 8:1 (7:1)

‫קריא[ מרדא‬1 ‫קריתא דך‬.

‫!( עזרא‬£‫ )ע‬...‫ואחר הדברים האלה‬. 8. 9:54 (8:12) (‫ ולשמוח‬1 ‫לאבל ולשתות‬.

Some of the additional verbs are synonyms to verbs already in the text (‫ ולהדות‬...‫ ;)להלל‬others are auxiliary verbs (‫ )ושריו‬or complementary ones (‫)להתענות‬. They derive from the context or answer the needs of the context (‫)עלה עזרא‬, or they form a known phrase (...‫)לנצח על מלאכת‬. Some may be either additions or omissions, others are better explained as intentional additions (e.g.,‫ שרפו‬,‫)עבד‬. While the following elements serve as subjects, they are nevertheless dispensable, being as they are repetitive or a substitute for an impersonal subject. Pluses in the M T

Pluses reflected in I Esd

1. 2:12 (Ezr 1:10)

1. 2:19 (Ezr 4:15)

!‫ !כפירי‬...‫כפורי‬.

‫ו)יהידיא( מרד ואשתדור עבדין‬.

2.5:56 (3:1)

2. 2:23 (4:19)

[‫ ויאספו!העם‬...‫ובני ישראל‬.

...‫ו)נבריא( מרד ואשתדור‬.

3. 6:23 (6:3)

3. 6:9 (5:8)

‫ ]ביתא[ יתבנא‬...‫בית אלהא‬.

‫ומצלח !;עבדאז( בידהס‬. 4.7:3(6:14) ‫ומצלח]ין[)ה{)עבי דת בית אלהאז‬.

The pluses in the M T vis‫־‬i-vis I Esd are all repetitive. The pluses reflected in I Esd serve to clarify die subject; the first two examples are of the same sort and so are the last two.

163

Vorlage e. Independent Components Pluses in the M T 1. 2:21 (Ezr 4:17) ‫]שלם[ וכעת‬. 2. 8:71 (9:6) ‫להרים ]אלהי[פני אליך‬.

f. Multiple Parts While the following additions/omissions belong to different syntactic categories, they all form a component of a multiple part. Pluses in the M T

Pluses reflected in I Esd

1. 1:13 (2 Chr 35:14)

1. 2:19 (Ezr 4:15)

‫בהעלות ]העולה ו[החלבים‬.

‫ ומרד? ואשתדור עבדין‬1.

2. 5:45 (Ezr 2:17)

2. 5:51 (3:5)

[‫והמשרדים והשוערים ]והנתינים‬

‫עלת תמיד )ועלת לשבתות( ולחדשים‬.

3. 8:8(7:11)

3. 5:57 (3:10)

[‫מצות ה׳ ]וחקיו על ישראל‬.

‫מלבשים ]בשירים( ובחצצרות‬. 227

4. 8:13 (7:16)

4. 5:65 (4:2)

[‫התנדבות ע מ א ]וכהניא‬.

(‫ויגשו אל זרבבל )וישוע‬.

S. 8:61 (8:33)

5. 6:13 (5:11)

[‫הכסף והזהב ]והכלים‬.

(‫ ו מ ל ן לישראל רב ]ותקיף‬.

Cf. 2:23 ( E z r 4:19).

227‫בשירים‬

could easily have been created or lost near ‫מלבשים‬.

Cf. 5:67 (Ezr 4:3). Cf. 8:59 ( E z r 8:30).

226

164

I Esdras

6. 8:66 (9:1)

6.6:17(5:14)

‫היבוסי ]העמני[ המאבי‬,

‫ויהיבו ולזרוגבל ו(ששבצר‬.

7. 9:37 (Neh 7:72)

7.8:66 (9:1)

‫הכהנים והלוים ]והשוערים‬

‫ישראל!והשרים[ והכהנים והלוים‬.

[‫ והנתינים וכל ישראל‬...‫והמשרדים‬. 8. 8:74 (9:7) 231

(‫עמומ א?ותימ‬3‫ו‬1 ‫ובעונתינו‬/

Although most of the elements gathered here add a new aspect to the text, it is difficult to decide whether they are omissions or additions. The text may have been extended by influence of the context or of stereotyped lists of items.

g. Divine Names The discrepancy between the parallel texts in regard to the divine names is similar to that of other categories. Here, too, there is a balance of extra elements in both texts (around a dozen cases in each of them). Most changes remain within the regular process of text transmission (e.g., ‫ה׳‬ turns into ‫ ה׳ אלהים‬or vice versa). One change, however, is peculiar to 1 Esd: the author is obviously reluctant to represent the phrase ‫ א ל ה שמיא‬, reformulating it or omitting ‫ שמיא‬altogether (see pp. 265-266), It is a complicated task to decide the part of the translator in these changes. Thus, he uses κύριος where either the Hebrew or Aramaic would take only ‫ א ל ה א‬/ ‫ א ל ה י ם‬. Consequently, one wonders, for example, whether I Esd s κύριος' Ισραήλ reflects a text other than M T s ‫( ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬see ρ. 267). Finally, there are also interchanges within the Greek tradition to be taken into consideration. The addition of Zerubbabel is certainly due to later revision; see pp. 52-54. I Esd και δια τ ά 5 α μ α ρ τ ί α ς ημών και των ττατίρων ημών does not actually reflect ‫ובעונות‬, but there is no other way to reconstruct the Hebrew.

165

Vorlage h. Name Lists

The changes in name lists are caused either by accidental corruption or by well-planned revision. In the list of returnees, 5:7-40 (Ezr 2:1-63), there are far more names lacking in the M T than in I Esd. While in the M T 21 names or groups of names (‫ מבני‬+ name + number) are lacking, in I Esd only 10 names are not represented. Many of the additional names in I Esd concentrate at two points: in the list of 5:15-16 (2:16) = five groups, and at the end of the list of Nethinim, 5:34 (2:57)s 8 groups. The stereotyped structure of the list may have caused the omission of entire groups of names through homoioteleuton. In the list of those returning with Ezra, 8:28-43 (Ezr 8:1-16) there are two names lacking in I Esd as compared with the M T , and vice versa. I Esd seems to preserve the original text all along. The pluses in the M T are obviously doublets: [

8

:

1

6

)

8:43,‫תן‬

for the pluses reflected in I Esd, one of the names lacking must have fallen out from the M T through h a p l o g r a p h y , ( 8 : 1 0 )

8:36,‫)ומבני)גניה‬.Th

of the list proves that the second name, too, fell out by accident; although, the reason is not quite c l e a r , ( 8 : 5 )

8:32,‫ ) מ ב נ י]זתוא‬.

In the list of those who married foreign women, 9:19-35 (10:18-43), there are 14 names missing from I Esd as compared with the M T ; whereas, only 2 names which appear in I Esd are not represented in the M T . The names not represented in I Esd are random and there is no clue to explaining the discrepancy, either technical or intentional.

i. Additional Phrases and Sentences Unlike the material gathered above, the following passages could not have been casually added or omitted, since most of the cases concern more than a random word or phrase. Unless the passages concerned were

166

IEsdras

repeated or omitted by mistake, there should be a good reason as to why they were added or omitted. Some of the passages are longer than the others, and some are more significant than the others. Some are repetitive, while others add new information. Pluses in the M T 1. 1:7 (2 Chr 35:7)[‫ ]הכל לפסחים‬...‫ צאן‬...‫וירם יאשיהו‬. The additional words serve as some sort of a summary. 2. 1:40 (36:8)...‫ ]והנמצא עליו[ הנם כתבים‬...‫ ו י ת ר דברי‬.

‫מג‬

2:18.3( E z r 4 : 1 3 ) ‫ ]כען ידיע להוא למלכא[ ד י‬...‫ מלכא‬...‫וכענת ידיע להוא ל‬. 4. 6:4 (5:4)...[‫ ]אדין כנמא אמרנא להם‬...‫וכן אמרין להם‬. 5. 6:7 (5:7) ‫ ]פתנמא שלחו עלוהי וכדנה‬...‫ על דריוש‬...‫פרשגן אגרתא די שלח תתני‬ [‫כתיב בגוה‬. 9:51.6(Neh 8:10)...[‫ ]ויאמר להם‬...‫ויאמר נחמיה‬. 8:6 .7(Ezr7:8) ‫ ובאחד לחדש החמישי בא אל ירושלם‬...‫]ויבא ירושלם[ בחדש החמישי‬."

5

8. 8:52 (8:22) [‫ י ד אלהינו על כל מבקשיו לטובה ]ועזו ואפו על כל עזביו‬.

‫ מ‬4

9. 8:56 (8:27)[‫וכפרי זהב עשרים )לאדרכנים אלף‬. ‫־ נ ־‬

The additional element disturbs the formula and has no substantial contribution to the text.

‫ "־־‬The text in 1 Esd. without a counterpart for ‫ ו י ב א ירושלם‬, remains awkward since the !

year is repeated without any reason: icai ι1υι‫׳‬αν* βη<ταν έκ τ ω ν υιών Ι σ ρ α ή λ . . . ΐτους

έβδομου β α σ ι λ ε ύ ο ν τ ο ς Ά ρ τ α ξ έ ρ ξ ο υ έ ν τώ π ε μ π τ φ μηνί (ούτος έ ν ι α υ τ ο ς

εβ&ομος τω βασιλει). 234

The idea of the fate of those who forsake God does not quite fit the context. It is not impossible, however, that it was left out on second thoughts.

167

Vorlage 10. 8:80 ( 9 : 1 1 ) [ ‫בתועבתיהם אשר מלאוה ]מפה אל פה נ ט מ א ת ם‬. 5 2

' .11. 8:90 (10:3)[‫והחרדים במצות אלהינו ]וכתורה יעשה‬ 9:48.12(Neh 8:8)[‫ בתורת האלהים ]מפרש ושום שכל‬...‫ויקראו‬. 9:50.13(Neh 8:9)

...‫ ה י ו ם קדש הוא לה• אלהיכם ]אל תתאבלו ואל תבכו[ כי בוכים‬.

236

14. 2:15-16 (Ezr 4:6-11) Considerable parts of the M T are not represented in 1 Esd. The omission seems to be part of the reformulation connected with the transposition of the entire letter of complaint (see pp. 36-38). In some cases in which the M T has a longer text in comparison with I Esd, it seems that the omission occurred through homoioteleuton; these cases do not strictly belong with the material adduced here since they are not concerned with the evolution of the texts, either by expansion or reduction, but rather with a mistake somewhere in the process of transmission. Since our assumption as to the reason behind the difference between the texts may not be the right one, we mention them here: 1. 1:10 (2 Chr 35:11) ‫על מחלקותם כמצות המלך ]וישחטו הפסח ויזרקו הכהנים‬... ...‫ ויסירו העלה לתתם[ למפלגות‬.‫מידם והלוים מפשיטים‬. Since the words ‫ כמצות המלך‬are not represented in I Esd at this point, one may consider an homoioteleuton ‫לתתם‬/‫מחלקותם‬. Without the omitted words the account does not mention the actual slaughtering of the Passover sacrifice (‫)וישחטו הפסח‬. It is not impossible, however, that the detailed rite was added or omitted by intention.

5

1'‫ ׳־‬Esd και όσοι π€1θαρχοΰσιν τώ ι‫׳‬όμφ του κυρίου seems to reflect ‫והחרדים בתורת‬

‫אלהינו‬. ' * The text is not clear without these words.

168

I Esdras

2. 1:37 (36:5)[‫ואחת עשרה שנה מלן‬1 ‫גמלבו‬... While the formulas are often reformulated in I Esd, probably by the translator, this seems to be a case of homoioteleuton since the information omitted is indispensable. 3. 8:20 (Ezr 7:22)!‫ועד חמר בוניו מ א ח ]ועד בתיו משח מאה‬. These words must have fallen out through homoioteleuton; cf. Ezr 6:9.

Pluses reflected in I Esd: 1. 2:18 (Ezr 4:15)...‫הן עלך טב( יבקר‬1 ‫ מלכא די‬...‫ ל‬...‫שלחנא‬. The phrase occurs in the similar context of Ezr 5:17. 2. 5:53 (3:7) ‫להביא מן הלכנון עצי ארזים )להעביר רפסדות( אל ים יפוא‬. Probably borrowed from 2 Chr 2:15. 3. 5:55 (3:8) .(‫)ויסדו א ת היכל האלהים באחד לחדש השני בשנה השנית בבואם ליהודה וירושתם‬ This text may have fallen out of the M T through homoioteleuton ‫ירושלם‬-‫ ;ירושלס‬however, it does not say anything not said in the context. 4. 5:63 (4:1)

‫ יהודה‬...‫והקול נשמע עד למרחוק וישמעו צרי‬ ...‫)ויבאו לדעת מה סול התרועה) וידעו כי‬

I Esd supplies a nice literary transition. There is no obvious reason why it would have been omitted. 5. 5:70, 6:1 (Ezr 4:5, 5:1)

‫ )וישביתו המלאכה שנים‬...‫ מרש‬...‫להפר עצתם כל ימי‬

...‫ )ובשנת תרתין למלכות דריוש( התבני‬...‫שתים) עד מלכות דריוש‬ In I Esd' sequence of events, the date provided by Ezr 4:24 disappears and is supplied here - twice.

169

Vorlage 6. 6:8 (5:8)

‫די אזלנא ליהוד מדינתא )ואתיגא לירושלם סריתא והשכחנא‬ (‫לשבי יהודיא בירושלס קריתא‬

The words ‫ שביא א ל ן‬in the following verse seem to presuppose this additional verse. It must have fallen out from the MT. 7. 6:26 (6:6)(?‫!ושם טעם ?אספרנא יתעבד‬. A link between the quotation of the words of Cyrus and the words of Darius is indeed needed, but these additional words hardly serve as such. Cf. also the following case. 8. 6:27 (6:8) I;‫ומני שים טעם )יאספרנא יתעבד וזהיריו הוו‬. It is difficult to reconstruct the Vorlage; even though, it is clear that the addition uses official language. 9. 7:9 (6:18)(‫ ככתב ספר משה )ותרעיא לןזרעא ותרעא‬...‫ ולויא‬...‫והקימו כהניא‬. 10. 8:69 (9:4) ‫ואלי יאספו כל חרד בדברי אלהי ישראל)ואני מתאבל( על מעל הגולה‬. 11. 1:21-22 (2 Chr 35:19) I Esd presents a large addition over the MT, probably a late expansion connected with the composition of the apocryphal book (see pp. 15-21). In the following case, there is a possibility of an accidental omission in the MT: 7:11 (6:20) ‫כי הטהרו הכהנים והלוים כאחד )וכל בני הגולה לא הטהרו כי הלוים‬ ‫כאחד( כלם טהורים‬. The additional words probably fell out in the M T through homoioteleuton, as suggested by the context (see also no. 3 above). The accidental omissions (through homoioteleuton), on the one hand, and the additions which are clearly part of the later revision characteristic of I Esd, on the other, are only a marginal segment in the material of pluses/minuses. Even i f the text has a long history, there is no basis to Klein's theory that it suffered such a large number of accidental omissions.

170

I Esdras

Similarly, although I Esd is clearly a revision, the traces of this peculiar revision are evident only in a very limited number of cases. The majority of additions/omissions adduced here do not but attest the process of regular text transmission, as reflected in other parts of the material, which comprise a discrepancy between the M T and I Esd's Vorlage.

j . Double Readings As opposed to double translations, double readings pertain to the history of the text, although the border between the two phenomena is not clear-cut.

237

For example, the double representation of a word such as ‫שבי‬

(‫ )יהח־יא‬in I Esd. as once with a shin and once with a sin, is recorded as a double translation since dtere is no way to represent it in the Vorlage. On the other hand, when the doublet is caused by a difference in one letter, we tend to attribute it to the Vorlage, although it may as easily be a double translation again.

238

Such are the following cases: 1. 2:17 (Ezr 4:12) ‫ ושוריא‬paralleled by τ ά ς τε αγοράς αυτής και τά τ ε ί χ η , possibly ~ ‫)זושוסיה;( ושוריה‬. 2-3. 6:24 (6:4) ‫ ונדבך די אע ח ד ת‬paralleled by και δόμου εγχωρίου καινού 239

ενός, possibly ‫ ארעא?( חדת )חרא( ־־‬n?) .‫ונדבך י יאע‬ It is more characteristic of double readings, as opposed to double translations, that there is little difference between the repeated words or passages. Thus, in the following cases the doublet does not convey two different things; rather, it conveys the same thing in two different places or ways. Sometimes the doublet, though repetitive, is a reformulation of its counterpart, or introduces a new element: 257

See Talmon (1960), pp. 144-184: (1961), pp. 335-383.

238

See pp. 238ff.

2 3 1

On another possible double reading (‫הגדול‬/‫ )הגולה‬sec 9:2 (Ezr 10:6).

171

Vorlage 4. 7:8 (6:17) ΜΤ: ‫על כל ישראל תרי עשר לממן שבטי ישראל‬

I Ε8(1 παντός του Ίσραηλ δώδεκα προς αριθμόν έκ των φυλάρχων του 'Ισραήλ δώδεκα ‫תרי עשר( ־־‬1 ‫על כל ישראל תרי עשר למנין שבטי ישראל‬. 2:64)

5:41

.5)

ΜΤ: ‫ מלבד עבדיהם ואמהתיהם‬.‫כל ה ק ה ל כאחד ארבע רבוא אלפים שלש מאות ששים‬ ,..‫אלה שבעת אלפים‬ ΙΕδάιοί δε π ά ν τ ε ς ή σ α ν ' Ισραήλ άπό δωδεκαετούς χωρίς παίδων και παιδισκών μυριάδες τέσσαρες δισχίλιοι τριακόσιοι έξήκοντα. παίδες τούτων και πριδίσκαι έπτακισχίλιοι τριακόσιοι τριάκοντα έ π τ α =‫־‬ ‫כל ישראל מבן שתים עשרה מלבד עבדיהם ו א מ ה ת י ה ס ארבע רבוא אלפים שלש מאות‬ ....‫ !עבדיהם ואמהתיהם( שבעת אלפים‬.‫ששים‬ 6. 5:38 (2:61-62) ΜΤ: .‫ הכהנה‬ρ ‫ אלה בקשו כתבם המתיחשים ולא נמצאו ויגאלו‬...‫ומבני הכהנים בני חביה‬ 1Εϊϋ: και εκ των ιερέων 0Ί έμποιούμενοι ίεροχτύνης και ούχ ευρέθησαν υιοί Ό β β ί α . . . και τούτων ζητηθείσης τής γενικής γραφής έν τώ καταλοχισμώ και μή ευρεθείσης έχωρίσθησαν τού ίερατεύειν ‫ אלה בקשו כתבם המוזיחשיס‬...‫ומבני הכהנים !המתיחשיס לכת
.‫ואף שמהתהם שאלגא להם להודעותך די נכתב שם גבריא די בראשיהם‬

I Ε5εΙ έπηρωτήσαμεν ούν αυτούς ε'ίνεκεν τού γνωρίσαι σοι και γράψαι σοι τους ανθρώπους τούς αφηγούμενους και την όνοματογραφίαν ήτοΰμεν αυτούς τών προκαθηγουμένων =‫־‬ ‫ואף שאלנא להם להודעותך די נכתב לך גבריא די בראשיהם ושמהתהם ז^אלנא להם‬ .(‫די בראשיהם‬

172

1 Esdras Hie following double, or as some would have it, triple reading, involves

both a variant and a new function of the sentence in the context: 8. 5:49 (3:3) MT:

‫כי באימה עליהם מעמי הארצות‬

I Esd: και έτιισυνήχθησαν

αύτοϊς έκ των άλλων εθνών τ η ς γης... δτι

έν έχθρα ήσαν αύτοΐς και κατίσχυσαν αυτούς πάντα τά εθνη τά έπι τ η ς γης ~ !‫ויבאו עליהם כל עמי הארצות‬1 ‫ כי באיבה עליהם‬...‫)ויבאו עליהם( מעמי הארצות‬ In two cases, it seems that I Esd has conflated two readings: 9. 1:3 (2 Chr 35:3) MT's ‫ ארון הקדש‬is paralleled by τ η ς ά γ ι α ς κιβωτού του κυρίου, which is possibly a conflation of a double reading: /‫ארון הקדש‬ ‫ארון האלהים‬. 5:44.10(Ezr 2:69) For the MT's ‫ לאוצר המלאכה‬I Esd reads ε ι ς τό ιερόν γαζοφυλάκιον των έργων, possibly a conflation of ‫ אוצר המלאכה‬and ‫אוצר‬ ‫האלהים‬/‫בית ה׳‬. Against all these cases there is only one possible example of a doublet in the M T not represented in I Esd: 1:5 (2 Chr 35:5) MT:

‫ וחלקת בית אב ללוים‬...‫ועמדו בקדש לפלגות בית האבות‬

I Esd: και σ τ ά ν τ ε ς έν τω ίερώ κατά την μεριδαρχίαν την πατρικήν υμών τών Λευιτών .‫ועמדו בקדש לפלגות בית האבות ללוים־־‬ 240

There are other double readings in the MT, but they are also recorded in I Esd, e.g., 1:12-13 (2 Chr 35:14) ‫ואחר הכינו להם ולכהנים כי הכהנים מ י אהרן בהעלות העולה‬ ‫והחלבים עד לילה והלוים חכינו להם ולבהנים בני אהרן‬.

Vorlage

173

k. Additions and Omissions Generated by Other Changes

In the following cases we assume that a certain element was added or omitted because of another change or a different understanding of the text.

Pluses in the M T

Pluses reflected in 1 Esd

1. 1:7 (2 Chr 35:7)

1. 1:25 (2 Chr 35:21)

MT. ‫ ]לכל! הנמצא‬...‫ל]בני ה[עם‬.

MT: ‫ואל ישחיתך‬.

I Esd: ‫לעם הנמצא‬.

IE s d : !

35:10) 1:10

.2)

M

T

:

[

3

242

I Esd: ‫ במצות‬.

5

:

2

IE s d : !

2

4

.‫)לאלהים‬

2 2

) 4

3

‫ל תשחית‬

1:26.2.‫]המלך‬ . ‫ח ג ב י א‬

36:4) 1:36

‫!ירמיהו‬ .3)

MT: ‫ אחיו לקח ]נכו[ ויביאהו מצרימה‬...‫ויסב א ת שמו יהויקים ואת‬. 244

IEsd: .‫ אחיו לקח ויביאהו מצרים‬...‫ויאסר יהויקים א ת השרים ואת‬ 36:15) 1:48

.4)

MT: [

7

I Esd: • ‫ ה ש ב‬.

:

1

4.3.‫השכם]ושלוח‬

I Esd:‫כי שמחים !לפני( ה׳‬.

5:56.5(Ezr 3:9) MT: ...‫]בני[ חנדד‬. In I Esd, the entire passage moves to another place; therefore, the name receives a different function in the context.

241

This is probably a theological change in I Esd.

2

'" The introduction of the unleavened bread is out of place here,

141

The substitution of Necho with the prophet as carrier of God's message is undoubtedlysecondary. 4

"‫ ־‬The picture drawn in I Esd is quite awkward and irrational. The disappearance of

Necho is characteristic of F Esd.

(Ezr

174

1 Esdras

6. 8:49(8:21) MT:[‫על הנהר ]אהוא‬. 1 Esd:

(‫על)ח»ריס‬

Mistaking ‫ הנהר‬for ‫הנערים‬/‫ הנער‬must have caused the omission of the river's name. 7. 9:53 (Neh 8:11) MT: .‫והלוים ]מחשים[ לכל העם לאמר ]הסו כי[ היום קדש ואל תעצבו‬ IEsd: .‫היום קדש ואל תעצבו‬

‫והלויס ]מחשים{ לכל העם לאמר‬

The reading of ‫' מחשים‬urging' instead of ‫' מחשים‬silencing' may have caused the further omission of ‫" הסו כי‬be silent since". This category does not comply with most of the categories outlined above. Unlike the balance in the growth of the texts characteristic to shorter and longer texts, here, the M T seems to preserve the original text in the majority of cases.

175

Vorlage Conclusion

The substantial discrepancy in the length of the text reflected in I Esd as compared with the M T does not single out 1 Esd as a witness to a shorter text-type, but rather underlines the parallel evolution of both texts. In the majority of categories, there is no clear tendency of one text towards a certain type of addition or omission. Only rarely is there an unbalanced development in the texts. Thus, I Esd displays a more frequent use of function words than the M T (15 cases versus 7); whereas, in the MT, there are more additional demonstratives than in I Esd (8 cases versus 1). Sometimes the balance is disturbed by a certain detail, such as the repeated addition of ‫ בית‬before the divine name in the M T , or the reiterated ‫ מרא‬to describe the king in I Esd. But in the main body of minuses / pluses, that of adnominals and adverbs, as well as in other syntactical categories, it is an almost symmetrical two-way movement. The content of the additional elements is multifarious. Some of the additions in I Esd show the writer's sensitivity towards theological matters, e.g., 1:4 (2 Chr 35:3) ‫ ;עבדו א ת ה׳ )ושרתו( את עמו ישראל‬1:46 (36:13)‫השביעו‬ 6:12;‫שם(אלהים‬1‫ב‬

(Ezr 5:11) ‫ ;אלה )עבד( שמיא וארעא‬the repeat

of ‫ שמיא‬from the phrase ‫ אלה שמיא‬belongs to the same trend, 6:28, 8:9. 21 (6:9; 7:12, 23). Other variants, which are not strictly omissions or additions, also join the same tendency, e.g., 2:5 (1:2) ‫ בירושלם‬i ‫ האלהים ]השכן‬for the MT's

2)

MT's [

1:25;‫האלהים ]אשר[בירושלם‬ 3

3

Chr 35:21

)

instead of ‫ ]ב[בית מקדשם‬in the MT. Twice the priests are defined as the Levites' brothers in 1 Esd, 1:12-13 (35:14). On several occasions, I Esd seeks to avoid the distinction between priests and Levites, 1:10 (35:10) I Esd reflects: ‫ על מחלקותם‬...‫ויעמדו הכהנים והלוים‬, instead of the M T : ‫ויעמדו‬ .

.

.

8

:

4

2;‫עמדם[ והלוים עלמחלקותם‬

‫בעם ומבני הכהנים ומן הלוים לא מצאתי שם‬, where the M T reads: ‫ואבינה בעם‬ 6:18)

7:9

;‫שם‬

‫) ו ב כ ה נ י ם ומבני לוי לא מצאתי‬

I Esdras

176

‫)מלבשיו( במחלקתהון‬. as against ‫ כהניא בפלגתהון ולויא במחלקתהון‬in the MT. In the latter case, the garments of the. priests and Levites are specifically noted in I Esd; this is the case also in 1:2 (2 Chr 35:2), 5:40 (Ezr 2:63). Such vaiiants are probably deliberate. The majority of variants, however, are random and pertain to the natural growth of the texts. Indeed, the mass of additional elements in both I Esd and the MT, as well as other variants which distinguish between the texts, do not have much in common, except for the wish to retouch the text in order to better define it, or, on the other hand, to avoid repetitious elements. In many cases the meaning is barely changed, the variants being rather a matter of a different style of writing. This is obvious in a great number of cases in which the extra element is nothing more than a repetition of an existant one, e.g., the following words, not represented in I Esd: 1:39 (2 Chr 36:7) [

2

:

1

2;‫לבבל‬1...‫ הביא‬..‫להליכו בבלה‬

(Ezr

(4:24) [‫ ]והות בטלא‬...‫ ; ב א ד ץ בטלת עבידת‬5:50 (3:4) ‫ ]דבר יום‬...‫ועלת יום ביום‬ [‫ ;ביומו‬6:1 (5:1) ‫ ;והתנבי חגי ]נביא[ וזכריה בר עדוא נבייא‬6:7 (5:7) ‫פרשגן אגרתא‬ [‫ על דריוש מלכא ]פתגמא שלחו עלוהי וכדנה כתיב בגוה‬...‫ ;די שלח‬6:17 (5:14)‫והיבל‬ ‫ ;המו להיכלא ]די בבל[ הנפק המו כורש מלכא מן היכלא די בבל‬6:23 (6:3) ‫שם טעם‬ ‫ ;בית אלהא בירושלם ]ביתא[ יתבנא‬2:19 (4:15) ‫;ותנדע די קריתא דך ]קריא[ מרדא‬ 8:70 (9:5-6) ...[‫ ]ובמנחת הערב‬.‫עד למנחת הערב‬...; 8:71 (9:6) ‫ להרים‬...‫אלהי בשתי‬ ‫ ;]אלהי[ פני אליך‬9:16 (10:16)[‫אנשים ראשי האבות ]לבית אבתם‬. In the following three texts, the introducion to the words spoken is repeated in the MT; although, the words spoken are not interrupted: 2:17-18 (4:13)[‫ ]כען ידיע להוא למלכא‬...‫ ;ידיע להוא למלכא‬6:3-4 (5:3-4)...‫וכן אמריו להם‬ [

9

:

5

1;[‫אדין כ נ מ א אמרנאלהם‬

(Neh 8:9-10)

these last cases, the impression is that the repetitive text is rather the original text while I Esd shows a tendency to shorten apparently pleonastic texts. This, however, is not necessarily the general conclusion regarding the relationship between the texts since there are cases in which the pleonastic text is that of I Esd and the M T offers the more concise version. Thus, 1:6 (2 Chr 3

5

:

6

)

(

6

:

9;‫ לעשות)הפסח‬...‫שחטו הפסח‬

177

Vorlage

•‫ ;מתעבדא ומצלח }עבדא( בידה‬8:13 (7:16) ...‫ וכל‬...‫התנדבו לאלה ישראל לירושלם‬ (

9

(Neh 8:2) (

: 9

:

4 4

0;‫לס‬

6;‫ע )אתהתורה‬

(‫ וכפתחו )את התורה‬...(‫ א ת }ה[ספר )התורה‬. Expansive writing is expressed in many other ways, but the repetitive texts adduced here best illustrate the development of the texts through reduction and expansion. As for the amount of pluses/minuses, it is not possible to arrive at an accurate number of elements which are added or omitted in one text as compared with the other, or to fix the percentage of missing elements in relation to the bulk of elements which constitute the entire work under discussion. Are minor elements such as waws, pronouns and prepositions counted separately? Is a text which replaces an explicit noun by a retrospective pronoun shorter or just different? Is a variant such as M T ‫על‬ ‫הקינות‬, as opposed to ‫ על ספר דברי הימים למלכי יהודה‬reflected in I Esd, shorter by four words or just deviant? Is an addition of one word counted as one plus whereas an additon of a phrase counted according to the number of words which constitute the phrase? Is an addition of two verses - the case of 1:21-22 - counted as an addition of the total of the extra words? Separating a longer addition into its elements distorts the data. Thus, there are 360 additional words in the M T (seven percent of the relevant material in the MT), which constitute 200 lacking units in I Esd as compared with the MT. The felling information is that the MT, too, lacks about the same amount of words or units as compared with I Esd.

345

345

This is the main difference between the result of the comparison between I Esd and the M T and the result of the study of Jeremiah-LXX versus the M T . While 1 Esd and its parallel parts in the M T have approximately the same amount of pluses, Jeremiah-LXX is shorter than the M T in a ratio of 1:7, but is longer man the M T only by 1:70; see Min (1970), who concludes that Jeremiah-LXX represents the original short text, later expanded in the M T . At any rate, they certainly represent two diachronically different stages in the. transmission of the text: whereas, in our case, we speak of two parallel processes in the evolution of the text.

178

I Esdras The comparison between the pluses in I Esd and the M T shows little

difference in the quality of text evolution represented in both texts. Some changes are characteristic of the unique revision of 1 Esd, but these constitute only a minority. Others seem to indicate that the text reflected in I Esd was not as well-preserved as the MT: it shows more cases of omission through homoioteleuton as well as doublets. Some omissions and additions, which probably ensue from other changes, seem to indicate that the text reflected in I Esd was treated more loosely than the MT. On the whole, however, the balanced comparison beween I Esd and the M T shows that the same processes are characteristic of both texts. It is impossible to arrive at the Urtext by a comparison of I Esd and the MT. It seems incorrect to take the parts common to both texts as the original text. The fact is, that besides the minuses/pluses, there are about one-hundred variants between the texts, not counting the differences in word-order, which may have occurred in the Vorlage. These variants are not later additions to one earlier common text; rather, the text existed in one form and was modified into another since many of the variants are significant in the context. This is also true, at least partly, in regard to the main issue of minuses/pluses. One is reluctant to accept the simplistic conclusion that the original text is the one which emerges after the omission of all pluses from both I Esd and the M T . We are not in a position to describe the condition of the texts at the point at which they took separate routes, that is, the starting point of a long process during which they developed into representatives of different, recognizable text-forms. Describing I Esd as a representative of a separate group of texts, or 1 6

of a text-type, ' is a matter of speculation. Indeed, I Esd is supported in several cases by the L X X and sometimes also by the Lucianic MSS of the L X X , the Peshitta and the Vulgate, and, in the appropriate parts, by the counterpart in the Books of Kings and by the parallel list of Neh 7; but, there is no substantial evidence to tie the text-form reflected i n I Esd to 2 4 6

See the terminology of Cross (1975), as against the looser terms used by Tov (1992).

179

Vorlage

that of the other extant textual witnesses, which are incomparably closer to the MX. From the evidence we have, I Esd's Vorlage represents only itself. It must have departed from the main text at an early stage, on the one hand, and undergone a substantial process of transmission, on the other. This text came into the hands of the revisor, who created I Esd and who must have contributed his own share to the modification of the text in general, not just along the main lines which characterize the apocryphal book. It is complicated to distinguish between the changes that already existed in the version used by the revisor and those introduced by him, or between possible changes which entered the text in the course of transmission of the apocryphal book. It is quite clear, however, that the majority of variants do not carry the distinctive stamp of the main revision, but agree with the standard processes of textual transmission. The gap between the texts preserved in I Esd and in the M T stands out only in that it is unconventionally deep, much more than the ordinary amount of changes which affect texts. On the whole, including the activity of the revisor, the relationship between I Esd and the M T complies with the kind of textual and literary activity which emerges from the comparison between the M T and the L X X in the books of Esther and Daniel. Finally, we must take into consideration the translator's contribution to die design of the text since he is certainly no conventional translator. In this matter, too, it is not always possible to determine between variations which go back to the translator and variants in the

24

Vorlage '

The main impression created by the detailed comparison between the conjectured Vorlage of I Esd and the parallel parts in the canonical books is that of a continued and intensive course of change. The discrepancy is not the result of a defined line of revision in one text or the other, but rather, it results from a fluid, though outstanding, growth of both texts.

The continuity in the processes of textual transmission is emphasized by Talmon (1975), pp. 321-4fX).

CHAPTER THREE

THE TRANSLATION

I . Translation Technique

In this chapter we will seek to evaluate the translation through which I Esd has come down to us.

248

The study of translation techniques ranges

from general assessments to a more precise and detailed analysis of the data. Today's research tends to lean in the latter direction, and indeed much has changed since Thackeray first mapped the Greek translations in 24

his now classic study. " Though many o i l riackeray's general conclusions have since been replaced by the results of more detailed research, the overall picture remains basically the same. Only now hard facts and figures support it. Even so, it seems doubtful whether the study of translation technique will ever become an exact science, when neither the Vorlage nor the original translation has come down to us. Yet another obstacle to this goal is the difficulty of establishing precise criteria of translation technique. A number of scholars, of whom Barr and Tov are the foremost representatives,

250

have advanced various criteria for defining the literal

translation. In doing so they seek to refine both the study of translation technique and the use of translations in textual criticism. It should be noted that Barr (p. 281) is reluctant to speak of 'free' translations, arguing that there is no such species in the world of the LXX. Indeed, it seems far more appropriate to speak of a translation as being more or less literal, than to define it as 'free'. The latter can imply a philosophy of translation foreign to the milieu of translators in which we are concerned. It might also be wise to relinquish the characterization of translations as 'free' for another reason, namely, the relatively few limits as to what a free translation l m

Since Nestle (1893). no one has questioned that 1 Esd is indeed a translation rather than a revision of some other, certainly unknown Greek translation; see Tedesche (1938). pp. 12-15.

‫ *־‬Thackeray (1909): on I Esd see pp. 13, 15. w

‫ ־‬Ban (1979): Tov (1981), pp. 50ff.

184

I Esdras

can be. The literal translation, on the other hand, can be defined in more exact terms, with the work of a translator such as Aquilas setting the standards. In order to determine the extent to which a translation is literal, let us apply two sets of criteria: ( I ) the degree to which all elements are faithfully represented, in both quantity and word-order; (2) the adequacy of the equivalents and the consistency with which they are used. Of these criteria, it is no doubt the former which most characterizes the translation. If we understand 'literal' in its most basic sense, we would expect a literal translation to reflect every word of its Vorlage down to the smallest particle. The technique behind this kind of translation is highly systematic with each element retaining its strict autonomy. It requires the translator to direct his attention to only one item at a time, and to faithfully represent it in its original order and through a standard equivalent. Needless to say, such a technique makes short shrift of idiomatic phrases and does not lend itself to the kind of translation which syntactical or logical units demand. Were it possible to actually measure the units on which a translator based his translation, we would be closer to finding precise standards of literalism. In other words: the larger the unit, the less literal the translation. The following examples, taken from I Esd and the LXX, graphically show the difference between literal and non-literal translations: 2:1 (1:2)‫כל ממלכות הארץ נתן לי‬ 5 4 3 2 1 LXX: Πάσας τ ά ς βασιλείας τ η ς γ η ς έδωκε ν μοι 1 2 3 4 5 IEsd:'Epe άνέδειξεν βασιλέα τ η ς οικουμένης 5 2+4 1+3 Or, 2:1 (1:1) ‫ובשנת א ח ת לכורש מלך בבל‬ 8 7 65 4 32 1 LXX: Και έν τω πρώτω έτει Κύρου τουβασιλέως Περσών 1 2 3 4 " 3 5+6 7 8 I Esd:Βασιλεύοντος Κύρου Περσών έτους πρώτου 5+7 6 8 1+2+3 4

Translation

185

In sum, the translator of I Esd takes the entire syntactical unit as his starting point while the LXX generally strives for a word for word translation (only in the case of ‫ לכורש‬is the preposition taken together with the name: Kupou). There are many cases in which our translator obviously considered entire syntactical units before translating them. To cite one characteristic phenomenon, we find that a tendency to form subordinate clauses results in linking verbs which were separated by a string of words in his Vorlage, e.g., 1:1-2 (2 Chr 35:1-2): ‫וישחטו )הפסח בארבעה עשר לחדש הראשון( ויעמד‬ (...‫ = )הכהנים‬k‫־‬ai ZQvocv... arriaas... (similarly 1:5-6). To cite another, the translator often reformulated the syntax in order to change clauses from active to passive, an act which caused him to treat the entire clause and not just the individual words. The frequent changes in word-order so characteristic of our translator also imply a concern for units of logic, rather than a blind adherence to the individual elements. Interestingly enough, considering the relative size of the translation units, the respective equivalents are generally easy to identify. In summary, the method of translation reflected in I Esd is a far cry from other translations in this corpus of literature which failed to distinguish between content and form and thus transmitted words at the expense of their meaning. With these comments in mind, let us now turn to a more detailed examination of our translator's working techniques.

a. Adequacy of Equivalents

1. Consistency in Choice of Equivalents In principle one could argue that the literal translation does not necessarily require consistent word choices. Theoretically speaking, a translator could render the same word differently each time it occurs and

186

I Esdras

still be considered a literal translator as long as he adequately represents his Vorlage. The translator of I Esd, for example, does not have a fixed equivalent for a simple term such as ‫שרים‬. When the ‫ שרים‬appear in conjunction with the king, they are called οί μ ε γ ι σ τ ά ν ε ς , head of their people or clans either 0Ί ηγούμενοι , and at times οί προκαθήμενοι.

253

m

251

and as the

or οί προηγούμενοι,

‫שרי הכהנים‬, on the other hand, were

found worthy of their own term: οί φύλαρχοι των ιερέων.

254

What does

this flexibility in word-choice mean for the nature of the translation as a whole? Does the translator's sensitivity to the changing context ultimately produce an unfaithful translation? I f the goal is to try to recover 1 Esd's Vorlage, inconsistent word-choices obviously make our task more difficult. This is especially true when we consider yet another angle of the problem: does the translator use these terms exclusively for ‫ ?שרים‬Unfortunately, he does not, as shown by the fact that some of them also double as ‫ראשים‬, 255

specifically in the term .‫ראשי האבות‬

Therefore, i f a phrase such as 01

ηγούμενοι των πατερών appears in 1 Esd without a parallel in the MT, any hypothetical reconstruction can only submit both ‫שרי האבות‬/‫ראשי‬, similar to ‫ שרי האבות‬in 8:58 (Ezr 8:29), or ‫ ראשי האבות‬in 5:63 (2:68). In this case, the latter equivalent should be preferred, since it occurs with more frequency. If reconstruction is the goal, then, fixe.d equivalents can obviously play a major role. In actual fact, the literal translation assumes a one-to-one relationship with its Vorlage. with any given word in Greek automatically referring to * 5 5,8:26‫י‬

3

(Ezr 7:28; 8:25); ef. also 1:36 ( 2 C h r 3 6 : 4 ) . In 1:27 (35:23) he presum

read ‫( שרים‬MT ‫ )ירים‬and rendered with ΰρχοι. l : 4 7 ( 2 C h r 36:14), 8:48.58. 65 (Ezr 8:20, 29; 9:1).

J V |

;

‫״‬

9 : 1 2;8:67" (Ezr 9:2,; 10:14); 9:4 (10:8).

2 5 4

8:54, 58,92 (Ezr 8:24, 29; 10:5), and ef. 1:9 (2 Chr 35:9) ‫ ־־שרי הלויס‬χιλίαρχοι (‫שרי‬ 0‫י‬0‫)?האל‬.

‫ "״‬Thus οί η γ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ι , «κ προηγούμενοι, οί. προκαθήμενοι, 5:63, 65, 67 (Ezr 2:68; 4:2,3), ef. also 9:16 (10:16); 8:28 (8:1); 5:60 (3:12).

Translation

187

a standard counterpart in the original. It seems safe to say that a translator who is consistent in his choice of equivalents is likely to be more literal in other aspects of the translation as well; however, this would require a survey well beyond the purview of the present study. Generally speaking, however, it seems that our specific translator did not view consistency in word-choice as a top priority. This is not to say. however, that our translator is totally inconsistent. He consistently renders (‫ לעשות )חג‬by άγειί' (10 times), ‫ גולה‬is rendered on all but one occasion by αιχμαλωσία. ‫ אספרנא‬by επιμελώς, ‫ ענה‬by ώωνείν, derivatives of ‫ קדש‬are paralleled by άγι-, and ‫ צלח‬by εύοδ-. etc. This trend is especially noticeable in relation to technical terms. Words such as ‫ סופר‬,‫ נתינים‬,‫ שוערים‬,‫משוררים‬, etc. are kept fairly consistent. Yet even in these cases, consistency is not a matter of primary importance since the translator only used a term when convinced that it was best suited to the context. At times, he was only partially consistent, as in his handling of ‫שים טעם‬. In this case, he chose the stem τάσσει v. usually as προστάσσειν (7 times), but he also variegates the prefix: έπιτάσσειν (3 times) and συι‫׳‬τάσσειι‫( ׳‬once). A l l three equivalents occur in the same chapter. A good deal of thought seems to have gone into his choice of equivalents for words such as ‫ נדב‬,‫נדבה‬. !"hough he generally rendered these words as εΰχη (3 times) and εύχεσθαι (3 times), he called the noun επαγγελία the first time it appeared in the text, and, possibly, ό νους ήγέρθη the first time it appeared in verb form. Verses 8:10, 13 (Ezr 7:13, 15. 16) are noteworthy for their sheer variety of equivalents: ‫ ~ מתנדבים‬τους βουλομένους... αίρετίςοντας;‫~התנדבו‬ηύξάμηι‫׳‬:‫־־התנדבות‬τωδεδωρημέΐ'ω. This technique clearly shows that far from being committed to consistency, the translator was consciously striving for variation. Such variation is not only a stylistic device but also a way of giving a word different shades of meaning, as seen in his use of double translations.

188

I Esdras Examples of this are many:

1. 1:54-55 (2 Chr 36:21) ‫ למלאות‬...‫־= למלאות‬άναπλήρωσιν... συμπλήρωσαν 2. 5:49 (Ezr 3:3) ‫ עלות‬...‫ ~ עלות‬θυσίας... ολοκαυτώματα. 3. 6:31 (6:11) ‫ ביתה‬...‫ ~ ביתה‬των ιδίων αύτοΰ... και τ ά υπάρχοντα αύτοϋ. 4. 7:4 (6:14) ‫ ומטעם‬...‫ ~ מן טעם‬διά π ρ ο σ τ ά γ μ α τ ο ς . . . και μ ε τ ά τ ή ς γνώμης... 5. 8:16 (7:18) ‫ תעבדון‬,..‫ ~ למעבד‬ποιήσαι... επιτελεί. 6. 9:48 (Neh 8:7. 8)‫ ויבינו‬...‫ ~ מבינים‬έδίδασκον... έμφυσιούντες. The phenomenon is even more striking when a rare word is involved, such as ‫אשתדור‬: 2:19.7(Ezr 4:15) ‫ ~ ואשתדור עבדין בגוה‬και πολιορκίας συνιστάμενοι έν αύτη; 2:23(4:19)‫־־־ואשתדור מתעבד בה‬και πολέμους έν αύτη συντελούντες.

2. The Level of Semantic Parallelism between Equivalents I h e above examples make it clear that the translator of I Esd supplied some rather extraordinary equivalents. Far from feeling obligated to create a translation that could be easily retroverted into its Vorlage, our translator felt free to imbue the text with something of his own spirit. He translated in the manner which he deemed best able to convey the meaning of a word in a given context. Thus, he repeatedly chose equivalents which conveyed only one particular nuance of the original words; as in: 1. 2:17 (Ezr 4:12) ‫ ~ שכללו‬θεραπε ύουσι ν. 2. 7:15 (6:22) ‫־־ לב‬βουλήν.

189

Translation 3. 2:25 (4:23) ‫ ־־ אזלו‬άναζεύξαντες. 4. 9:3 (10:7) ‫ = קול‬κήρυγμα. 5. 5:50 (3:4) ‫ ־־ככתוב‬ώς έ π ι τ έ τ α κ τ α ι . 6. 9:42 (Neh 8:4)‫ ־־ מגדל‬βήμα. 7. 5:53 (Ezr 3:7) ‫ « ים‬λιμένα.

His equivalents for ‫ יד‬are particularly noteworthy. For example, in 1:4 (2 Chr 35:4), his text presumably read (‫ )וכ(יד )שלמה‬which he rendered with μεγαλειότης (MT ‫ובמכתב‬, cf. LXX δια χειρός). This is perhaps not too far-fetched, considering his treatment of ‫ יד‬throughout the book. The word occurs 27 times in his Vorlage, but I Esd uses the standard equivalent of χειρ only in 10 of them. The L X X , on the other hand, uses χείρ almost 27 times. This discrepancy is due to the fact that ‫ יד‬is used as a preposition as well as in idioms, two categories which are subject to reformulation by translators. The preposition was rendered either by a simple διά or by derivatives of δίδωμι. The idiomatic phrases changed almost beyond recognition, as in 8:67 (Ezr 9:2)‫ = ד ד השרים והסגנים היתה במעל הזה‬μετεΐχον, which preserves the meaning, but retains little of the formal components. We could also mention 8:6 (7:9)‫ ~ בא אל ירושלם כיד אלהיו הטובה עליו‬κατά την δοθεΐσαν... εύοδίαν; again a perfect match in terms of content, but not in form.

256

While it is quite easy to draw parallels between the M T and

I Esd, it would be almost impossible to retrieve the Vorlage in such cases, were it not for the MT.

b. Changes in Morphemes Of all the factors involved in the comparison between source and translation, the linguistic data remain among the most elusive. Chr provides a good case in point. Had the text come down to us in its Greek version alone, we could probably assume that no one would ever have given much 256

See further Talshir (1982), pp. 50-52.

I Esdras thought to the language of its Vorlage. Most of the valuable material deduced from the comparison of the parallel texts of Chr and Samuel-Kings would be subsumed under the category of translation technique. Thus, even significant differences such as expansions, abbreviations and exegesis, not to mention differences which can be explained as reformulation, syntactic modification, and certainly secondary or small elements, would be attributed to the translator. Changes in morphemes have been suitably defined as variants/nonvariants.

257

A translator who tends to recast his source according to the

standards of the target-language is likely to unintentionally neglect the smaller elements. However, parallel Hebrew texts are rife with differences in these elements which often provide important evidence for textual transmission, and even for linguistic development. I Esd may, therefore, preserve differences in the Vorlage.

1, Waws The differences between textual witnesses concerning copulative waws are to be found at every stage of textual transmission. This is the easiest element to retrovert, yet at the same time one of the least certain. There is really no way of knowing whether differences in conjunctive elements originated with the translator, or were to be found already in his Vorlage. The differences in the use of waws can be quite instructive. Gerlemann, for example, concluded on the basis of waws in the lists of the Book of Genesis, that Chr has an affinity with the Samaritan Pentateuch, and not the M T .

258

Kutscher adduced more than 200 cases in which the waw in

1 Qlsa* has no parallel in the M r , but only 70 cases in the opposite, direction. The scroll, then, reflects the later tendency towards syndesis, just as Chr

257

8

Tov (1981), pp. 217ff.

" Gerleman (1948), pp. 10, 12.

191

Translation does too, when compared with its sources.

259

Since both texts continued to

develop independently once the contact between them ended, it is noticeable that the later tendency is not restricted to only one of the witnesses. It would seem, then, that the tendency towards syndesis can serve as a means of dating parallel texts relative to each other. However, we are naturally reluctant to make the same conclusions on the basis of translations. l i t e translator of I Esd would have had little compunction when it came to dealing with something as minor as a waw. He was quick to drop it when turning paratactic sentences into hypotactic ones, or when making units appear asyndetically beside tens, a construction impossible in the Vorlage, On the other hand, in places where καί is used for emphasis, we can assume this to be his own addition, e.g., 2:19 (Ezr 4:15) ‫על דגה קריתא‬ ‫ = דך החרבת‬61 ‫ י‬ψ αίτίαΐ' και ή πόλις αΰτη ήρημώθη. Generally, however, we cannot rule out the possibility that the change originated in the Vorlage, especially where other textual witnesses back up I Esd's evidence. Moreover, were the translator responsible for the changes we would expect him to follow a given pattern, but this is not the case. His indifference is especially apparent in lists which are replete with waws and which call for changes in respect to syndesis or asyndesis. There are lists of names connected by in the M T which turn asyndetic in 1 Esd, while in other cases, the

VVOH‫׳‬S

names remain unconnected in the M T but joined by καί s in 1 Esd. '!"his is clearly demonstrated by the list in 9:21-33 (10:20-43). Our translator was obviously unconcerned about repeating the καί in accordance with the syndetic list in the M T in 9:26 (!0:25) ‫ויזיה ומלכיה ומימן ואלעזר ומלכיה ובגיה‬ ,

=‫־‬και [ζζίας

καί Μελχίας· καί Μιάμιι/ος· καί Έλεάζαρος καί Ά σ ι β ί α ς

καί Bawaias, or in following the partly asyndetic list in 9:28 (10:27) ‫ ־־ אליועגי אלישיב מתניה וירמות וזבד ועזיזא‬Έ λ ι α δ ά ς Έλι,άσιμος Όθομίας Ίαριμώθ καί Σάβαθος καί Ζερδαίας. Therefore, the translator is hardly to blame for the addition of Kais in 9:29. 31 (10:28, 30), or for the 259

Kutscher (1974), pp. 414-429.

192

I Esdras

omission of waw$ in v. 34 (10:34-42). The same is true of other lists as well, whether of names, e.g., 9:43, 44, 48 (Neh 8:2, 4, 7), or of other items, e.g., 7:7-8 (Ezr 6:17) .

.

.

2

)

1:7

,‫עזין‬

...‫ ובקר‬...‫כבשים ובני עזים‬, where the waw is not represented in I Esd (or in the Peshitta), or 6:29 (Ezr 6:9) ‫ חנטין מלח חמר ומשח‬and 5:56 (3:8)‫ישוע בניו‬ ‫ ואחיו‬which are preceded by !cats in I Esd. There are some cases which would almost seem to demand the addition of a connective element during the process of transmission or translation, e.g., when only two items stand by each other asyndetically; thus, 1:4 (2 Chr 35:4) ‫לבית אבותיכם‬ ‫( כמחלקותיכם‬connected by και also in the L X X ) , or 8:8, 9 (Ezr 7:11, 12) ‫ כהנא ספר ד ת א‬:‫הכהן הספר‬. A l l in all, the translator seems to have followed his Vorlage, not necessarily from any sense of obligation, but because he worked quite automatically when it came to lists. Since the changes go both ways, it seems that the M T and I Esd's Vorlage each experienced their share of rewriting, more likely attracting waws in the course of transmission and linguistic development than dropping them. Sometimes the addition or omission of a waw has deeper implications since it changes the meaning of the text. Thus, the omission of the waw in 9:4 (Ezr 10:8) ‫ השרים ]ו[הזקנים‬turns two categories into one, while the addition of a και turns the settlers of Samaria into an entity in its own right in 2:21 (4:17)‫ ;כנותהון }ו(די יתבין בשמרין‬cf. also 2:15 (4:8). Another group is similarly divided in two in 8:45 (8:17) (‫אחיו }ו{הנתונים )הנתינים‬ ‫בכספיא המקום‬, and the omission of the waw in 7:13 (6:21) ‫בני ישראל השבים‬ ‫ מהגולה ]ו[כל הנבדל מ ט מ א ת גוי הארץ‬turns ...‫ כל הנבדל‬into a description of the Israelites. Once again, we have no way of knowing whether the translator or his Vorlage is to blame. Though we might have expected a more frequent use of 8e, the translator once again shows himself reluctant to use conjunctions where his Vorlage has none. Thus, out of 40 8es, only 10 are unparalleled in the MT. We can probably assume that some of these cases represent free

‫ וצפירי‬...

193

Translation

additions on the part of the translator, others reflect a different text. The same goes for οίιν, which is used twice for a waw and once for ‫ואף‬, in addition to four times without parallel in the M T . The conjunction most conspicuously used in I Esd without counterpart in the M T is ομοίως δέ, which has the effect of separating the offerings from the rest of the Temple needs, 6:29 (6:9) ‫ ואמרין לעלון לאלה שמיא חנטין מלח חמר ומשח‬- εις ταύρους και κριούς και άρνας, ομοίως δέ καί πυρον και άλα και οίνον και ελαιον; similarly 8:20 (7:22). In summary, the translator tended to follow his Vorlage in the matter of conjunctions. The results are inconclusive and give us no evidence that would point to a clear-cut preference for either syndetic or asyndetic constructions in I Esd's Vorlage.

2. Singular / Plural Another phenomenon generally treated in the category of variants/nonvariants is the difference between singular and plural. The difference between singular in the M T and plural in I Esd is quite conspicuous when it comes to nouns in the status constructus or status pronominalis, with the feminine ending taw: 1. 1:14 (2 Chr 35:15) ‫־= כמצות‬

7. 8 : 4 ( E z r 7 : 6 ) ‫־ ־ ב ק ^ ת ו‬

κατά τά... τ ε τ α γ μ έ ν α (cf. LXX),

τά άξιιόματα αυτού.

2. 1:52 (36:19) ‫ ח ו מ ת‬-

8. 8:72 (9:6)‫־־ ואשמתנו‬

τά τ ε ί χ α (cf. Peshitta).

αί γάρ αμαρτία ι ημών.

3. 5:50 (Ezr 3:4) ‫־־ועלת‬

9. 8:83 (9:13) ‫־ ו ב א ש מ ת נ ו‬

και θυσίας.

καί τάς... αμαρτίας ημών.

4. 5:51 (3:5) ‫« ו ע ל ת‬

10. 8:87 (9:15)‫־־באשמתינו‬

καί θυσίας.

έν ταΐς άνομίαις ημών.

194

I Esdras

5. 5:56 (3:8) ‫־־ מלא?ת‬

11. 9:7 (10:10) ‫־־ אשמת‬

των έργων.

αμαρτίας.

4 7:13 (6:21) ‫־ מ ט מ א ת‬ άπό των βδελυγμάτων. Only in one instance do we find a change in the opposite direction: 1:40 (2 Chr 36:8) ‫ ~ ותעבתיו‬και τ η ς αυτού ακαθαρσίας. The differences can easily be attributed to the translator's manner of rendering general nouns such as ‫ מצורו‬Orders', or ‫ עולה‬Offerings' in the plural. It is possible, however, that he read a defective holem, instead of a patah (e.g., ‫ ועלת‬for ‫)ועלת‬, or that he had a text with more matres lectionis, i.e., that his source already tended to give the plural. Some support for this latter possibility is the reading in Ezr 9:15 ‫באשמתינו‬, in which the yod points to the plural, but is vocalized as though it were singular. I Esd has other examples in which the transition to the plural requires more than a change in vocalization 13. 1:49 (2Chr 36:17) ‫׳מלך‬-‫־‬

17. 8:7(7:10) ‫־־חק ומשפט‬

τούς βασιλείς.

τά δικαιώματα και τά κρΐματα. (cf. L X X ; Peshitta).

14. 5:56 (Ezr3:9) ‫־ ע ש ה‬

18. 8:45 (8:17) ‫־־אחיו‬

ποιοϋντες.

τοις αδελφοί ς αύτοΰ. 26

15. 5:69 (4:4) ‫״ ־־ עם הארץ‬

19. 8:90 (10:3) ‫־־והנולד‬

τά δέ έθνη τ η ς γ η ς .

συν τοΐς τέκνοις αυτών, (cf. L X X ) .

16. 7:4 (6:14) ‫־־־מלך‬

20. 9:20 (10:19) ‫־־איל‬ 26

βασιλέων Περσών (cf. L X X ) . '

κριούς.

260

‫ עמי הארץ‬is regular, see below.

261

In this case, the plural is required by the context, since three kings are mentioned, so that the change cannot be considered purely linguistic.

195

Translation

In addition, we encounter the recurring interchange of singular-plural with the word ‫יד‬: 2) 21-23.1:50

Chr 36:17); 6:14 (Ezr 5:12); 9:20 (10:19).

There are remarkably fewer examples in the opposite direction, that is, plural in the M T for singular in I Esd: 1. 1:29 (2 Chr 35:24)

6:28

.4

=

έν τω... τάφω.

eis θυσίαν.

2. 1:31 (35:26) ‫־־־ וחסדיו‬

5. 8:69 (9:4)‫= בדברי‬

και τ η ς δόξης αύτοΰ.

τω ρήματι.

‫בקברות‬

(cf. LXX) ,262

3. 1:48 (36:15) ‫־־־ מלאכיו‬

6. 8:74 (9:7) ‫־־)מלכי( הארצות‬

του αγγέλου αύτοΰ.

τοις βασιλεύσιν τ η ς γ η ς .

7-9. We further note the construct

11,2,9:1)

which the genitival attribute is rendered in the singular (7f\s yf\g). The translator might have had in his Vorlage a form such as (4:4), or

5:69

11,10:2)9:9,8:89‫י הארץ‬

I Esd is older since the doubly marked plural of attributive constructs is 2

3

characteristic of later stages in the development of the language. * However, it is possible that the translator was more concerned with clarifying the meaning of his text than in preserving its outer form. The phrase does refer to the people who dwelled in the land, not to people of different lands. If the translator tended to read the. plural or, better, i f his source already reflected it, this may show the tendency of Late Hebrew to prefer the plural over the singular for collective or abstract nouns, such as m

The singular here is awkward since the verse goes on to speak about the messengers of God in the plural, in both the M T and I Esd.

K

' Hurvitz (1982), p. 38; Polzin (19761. p. 42; Qimron (1986), pp. 74-75.

196

I Esdras

o>rvD0-nc2 ,rn'j‫־‬m-im:» ,onp‫־‬i-ipx and many others.

This tendency is

particularly evident in I Esd, though sporadically attested in the M T as well.

c. Changes in the Syntax of the Verb

Changes which occurred in the syntax of the verbal clause provide us with one of the richest mines of information concerning the way in which the translator regarded his source. We cannot always know when the change was due to the translator rather than the Vorlage itself, but I Esd evinces two striking phenomena which clearly pertain to translation technique. Both are grounded in the nature of the Greek language itself, i.e. its tendency towards passive formulations and hypotactic constinctions. Our translator showed himself more than eager to conform with his target language on both of these accounts. He rarely missed an opportunity to turn a paratactic construction into a hypotactic one, and at times even made them up freely. Similarly, he frequently replaced the active voice for the passive one. 1. The Voice (a) Active / Passive Biblical Hebrew tends to use active constructions whenever the sentence has a well-defined subject. The use of the passive is generally restricted to sentences in which the subject is indefinite. Even then, however, one can see a definite trend away from the passive in Chr, the Qumran 265

scrolls and much of Rabbinic literature. The fact of different developments within Hebrew itself raises the possibility of a different

Vorlage.

Nonetheless, the differences between source and translation in this respect 2 6 4

Kropat (1909), p. 8ff; Pol/in (1976), p. 42f; Hurvitz (1982), pp. 43-46.

365

Kutscher(1974), p. 400.

197

Translation can usually be chalked up to the translators.

This is true for our translator

as well, since the introduction of passive forms is the rule rather than the exception in 1 Esd. There is little difficulty in identifying the active constructions which lay behind his use of the passive. Only in a few cases would a possible change in vocalization warrant the consideration of a variant reading: 1. 1:7 (2 Chr 35:8) ‫( נתנו‬read as ‫ ־־ )?נתנו‬εδόθη. 2. 1:16 (35:16) ‫ והעלות‬...‫( לעשות‬read as ‫ והעלות‬...‫ ־־ )?לעשות‬άχθήναι... και προσενεχθήναι. The next example seems to suggest a different text: 3. 2:22 (Ezr 4:19)(‫ ־=־ )ומני שים טעם ובקרו( והשכחו)די קריתא דך‬και ευρέθη. Cf. the Lucianic MSS of Π Esd, and 6:22 (6:2) ‫באדין דריוש מלכא שם‬ ...‫ והשתכח באחמתא‬...‫( טעם ובקרו‬though this sentence is structured differently). In the main, however, the changes can safely be attributed to the translator. Thus, he tends to introduce the passive for constructions which 26

involve verbs in the H i p h ^ l : ' 4.

1:29

(2 Chr 35:24)

‫ ויוליכהו‬...(‫( ~ )וירכיבהו‬και άνεβη)... και

αποκατασταθείς. 5. 1:46 (36:13) ‫ אשר השביעו‬- και ορκισθείς... (έπιορκήσας). 6. 1:47 (36:14) ‫ אשר הקדיש‬- τό άγια£όμεν‫׳‬ον. 7. 8:22 (Ezr 7:24)‫ = ולכם מהודעין‬και ύμΐν δε λέγεται. 2 4 6

Rabin (1962), pp. 60-76. Rabin examined the practice of translators in 242 cases of indefinite subjects reaching the conclusion that the differences are without meaning to the history of the text and attributable to the individual habits of the translators alone.

2CT

See Tov (1982), § iv.

198

IEsdras

8. 8:75 (9:8) ‫ ־= להשאיר לנו פליטה‬καταλειφθήναι ήμΐν ρί£αν. 9. 5:57 (3:10) ‫ ־־ויעמידו הכהנים‬κ‫־‬αί έστησαν 01 lepetsThere is strong evidence from other witnesses in favor of a different reading (‫ )ויעמדו‬here. 10. 7:9 (6:18) ‫ ־־ והקימו כהניא‬και έστησαν οί ιερείς. The passive is introduced for constructions other than the Hiph'il, the change sometimes involving the verb alone, though more frequently entire clauses: 11. 1:41 (2Chr36:9) ‫־= במלכו‬δτε γαρ ανεδείχθη. 12. 1:30 (35:25) ‫ ־־ויתנום‬και εξεδόθη τούτο. 13. 9:42 (Neh 8:4) ‫ ~ אשר עשו לדבר‬του κατασκευασθέντος. 14. 9:55 (8:12) ‫ =־ אשר הודיעו להם‬οΐς έδίδάχθησαν. 15. 5:39 (Ezr 2:62) ‫ ־= ואלה בקשו כתבם‬και τούτων ζητηθείσης της... γραφής. 16. 6:6 (5:5)(‫ ־־ ולא בטלו המו עד טעמא )לדריוש( יהך )ואדיו‬και ούκ έκωλύθησαν τ ή ς οικοδομής... τού ύποσημανθήναι... και προσφωνηθήναι. Sometimes the translator shifts to a complete passive construction, introducing the agent through a preposition (mainly ύπό). Considering the changes involved, it must have taken no little effort to make such complicated reformulations: 17. 2:11 (Ezr 1:8) ‫ ־־־ויספרם‬δια δε τούτου παρεδόθησαν. 18. 2:13-14

(1:11) ‫ ~ העלה ששבצר‬διεκομίσθη... άνηνέχθη

Σαναβασσάρου.

δέ ύπό

Translation

199

19. 7:1 (6:13) ‫ ־־ די שלח דריוש מלכא‬τ ο ι ς ύπό τ ο υ βασιλέως Δαρείου προσταγεΐσιν, 20. 8:3 (7:6) ‫ ־־ אשר נתן ה׳ אלתי ישראל‬τω έκδε δομένο,) ύπό του θεού του ' Ισραήλ. 21. 8:76 (9:9) ‫ ~ לא עזבנו אלהינו‬ούκ έγκατελείφθημεν ύπό του κυρίου ημών, 22. 9:39 (Neh 8:1)‫ ~ אשר צוה ה׳‬τ ό ν παραδοθέντα ύπό τ ο ύ κυρίου. At times, he even replaced simple nominal phrases with passive clauses, when he could easily have dismissed them with a literal equivalent: 23. 1:14 (2 Chr 35:15) ‫ ־־כמצות דוד‬κατά τ ά ύπό Δαυίδ τ ε τ α γ μ έ ν α . 24. 1:31 (35:27) ‫ ~ ודבריו הראשנים‬τά τε προπραχθέντα ύ π ' αύτοΰ. 25. 8:13 (Ezr 7:16) ‫ ~ עם התנדבות עמא‬συν τω δεδωρημένω ύπό τού έθνους. We find three cases in 1 Esd where the passive construction has no obvious counterpart in the MT. In view of all the above, one tends to reconstruct them into active forms, as following: 26. 1:25 ( 2 Chr 35:21) ‫ ־־ לא עליך א ת ה היום‬ουχί προς σέ έξαπέσταλμαι ύπό κυρίου τού θεού. Were it not for the M T , one would readily suggest a simple Vorlage such as ‫לא אליך שלחני ה• אלהים‬. It is not impossible, however, that the translator derived ‫ אתה‬from the root ‫' אתה‬to come' ( L X X ήκω), and formulated it in the passive voice, as he was wont to do. In that case, one would have to say that he also supplied the agent ύπό κυρίου τού θεοΰ, despite the fact that it seems somehow connected with the MT's ‫היום‬.

200

lEsdras

27. 1:45 (2 Chr 36:12) ‫ = )לא נכנע( מלפני ירמיהו הנביא מפי ה׳‬άπό των ρηθέντων λόγων ύπόΙερεμίου του προφήτου έκ στόματος του κυρίου. The translator may have had a more expansive text such as ‫מלפני דברי‬ ‫ירמיהו הנביא אשר דבר מפי ה׳‬. Other versions also add a verb at this point, a fact which tends to suggest reformulation on the part of the translators. 28. 5:53 (Ezr 3:7) ‫ עליהם‬...‫ ־־־ כרשיון כורש‬κατά τό πρόσταγμα τ ό γραφέν αύτοίς παρά Κύρου. This is again a passive formulation which might go back, to an active ‫אשר כתב‬, but it could also be a free, wholly characteristic construction on the part of our translator (the Peshitta and the Vulgate also turned ‫כרשיון‬ into a verbal clause).

(b) Passive / Active Changes in the opposite direction, i.e., from passive to active, are few and insignificant. 1. 2:22 (Ezr 4 : 1 8 ) ‫ = קרי ק ד מ י‬άνέγνων. 2. 8:66 (9:1) ‫ מעמי הארצות‬...‫ והכהנים‬...‫ = לא נבדלו העם‬ούκ έχώρισαν τό έθνος... και 01

ιερείς.., τ ά αλλογενή έθνη.

Altogether, we found some 30 cases of active/passive interchanges, 268

or a ratio of 1:11 for I Esd's 340 verses. Though verses obviously make for an inadequate unit of measure, they do provide us with a reliable basis for comparing the situation in the parallel portions of the L X X where no such interchanges occur. It is also difficult, i f not impossible, to offer any other basis for comparing translations inrespectto syntactical reformulations of this kind. It is also worth noting that more than a third of the cases are concentrated in the first chapter.

201

Translation 2. Parataxis - Hypo taxis

The frequent use of subordinate clauses is one of I Esd's most outstanding features.

269

The translator repeatedly used hypotactic

constructions, either as a replacement for paratactic constructions in his Vorlage or as a substitute for various other formulations. The pattern typically used by the translator calls for a combination of the participle and finite verb.

(a) Hypotactic Clauses / Paratactic Clauses This group of examples best illustrates the issue at hand, since it shows the tendency of Hebrew and Aramaic towards paratactic constructions versus the tendency of Greek towards the hypotactic. l i t i s group is also important since it provides us with a ready standard of literalism clearly demonstrating the difference between translators who follow the genius of the original language and those who try to bend it to suit the target language. In tliis context let us also remember that the translator was obliged to deal with a relatively large chunk of his Vorlage before deciding whether to subordinate one verb to another, a step which in itself calls for paraphrase. The trend toward hypotactic clauses is thus a well-established characteristic of our translator. Had the original text been lost, one might be tempted to theorize about the presence of subordinate clauses in I Esd's Vorlage on the basis of texts such as Neh 8:5 ‫ וכפתחו עמדו כל העם‬and Ezr 9:3 ‫וכשמעי את הדבר הזה קרעתי את בגדי‬. But with the M T to guide us, there is little doubt as to the original equivalents. m

Walde (1913). pp. 18-19. In seeking 10 prove dial I Esd is not based on the L X X , Walde cites this fact somewhat clumsily as evidence of the profound difference between I Esd and the L X X regarding their treatment of the parallel material. Cf. Hanhart (1974*), p. 109: "Partizipiale Formulierungen sind dem Stil von Esdr I in einer Weise eigentümlich, dass ihr Verhältnis zur hebräischen Vorlage nur noch von geringer Bedeutung 1st". See also Aejmelaeus (1982), and the discussion above.

202

1 Esdras

1. 1:1-2 (2 Chr 35:1-2)‫ ויעמד‬...‫ ־־ וישחטו‬m i έθυσεν... στήσας. 2. 1:5-6 (35:5-6)‫ ושחטו‬...‫ ועמדו‬- και στάντες... θύσατε. 3.1:10 (35:10)‫ ויעמדו‬...‫ותכון‬-και τούτων γενομένων εύπρεπώς έστησαν (gen. abs. + finite verb). 4. 1:26 (35:22) ‫ ~ התחפש ולא שמע‬επιχειρεί ού προσεχών. 5. 1:29 (35:24) ‫ וימת‬...‫ ־־ ויוליכהו‬και αποκατασταθείς... μετήλλαξεν τόν βίον αύτοΰ. 6. 1:32(36:1) ‫ וימליכהו‬...‫ ~ ויקחו‬και άναλαβό ντε ς... ανέδειξαν βασιλέα. 7. 1:36 (36:4)‫ ויביאהו‬...‫ ־־־ לקח‬συλλαβών άνήγαγεν. 8. 1:39 (36:7) ‫ ויתנם‬...‫ ־־הביא‬λαβών... και άπενέγκας άπηρείσατο. 9. 1:44 (36:10) ‫ ויביאהו‬...‫ ־־ שלח‬άποστειλας... μ ε τ ή γ α γ ε ν αυτόν. 10. 2:5 (Ezr 1:3)‫ ויכן‬...‫ ־־־ ויעל‬και άναβάς... οίκοδομείτω. 11.2:17 (4:12)‫ בנין‬...‫ אתו‬...‫ =די סלקו‬άναβάντες... έλθόντες... οίκοδομοΰσιν. 12. 2:25 (4:23) ‫ ובטלו‬...‫־־ אזלו‬άνα£εύξαντες... ήρξαντο κωλίιειν. 13. 5:39 (2:62) ‫ ויגאלו‬...‫ ולא נמצאו‬...‫ ־־ בקשו‬ζητηθείσης... ευρεθείσης έχωρίσθησαν (gen. abs. + finite verb). 14. 5:46 (3:1) ‫ ויאספו‬...‫ » ויגע‬έ ν σ τ ά ν τ ο ς δέ... συνήχθησαν. 15. 5:47 (3:2) ‫ ויבנו‬...‫ ~ ויקם‬και καταστάς... ήτοίμασαν. 16. 5:65 (4:2) ‫ ויאמרו‬...‫ ~ ויגשו‬και προσελθόντες... λέγουσιν. 17. 6:2 (5:2) ‫ ושריו למבנא‬...‫ ~ קמו‬στάς... ήρξαντο οίκοδομεΐν.

Translation

203

18. 6:19 (5:16) ‫ ־־ א ת א יהב‬παράγενόμενος ένεβάλετο. 19.6:19 (5:16) ‫ ~ מתבנא ולא שלם‬οικοδομούμενος ουκ ελαβεν συντέλειαν. 20. 8:42-43 (8:15-16) ‫ ואשלחה‬...‫ =־ מצאתי‬εύρων... απέστειλα. 21. 8:44-45 (8:17) ‫ ואשימה בפיהם דברים‬...‫ = ואוצאה )ואצוה( אותם‬και ε ί π α αύτοις έλθεΐν... έντειλάμενος αύτοΐς. 22. 8:70 (9:5-6)‫ ואמרה‬...‫ ואפרשה‬...‫ ואכרעה‬...‫ ובקרעי‬...‫ =־ קמתי‬και εξεγερθείς... διερρηγμένα έχουν... κάμψας... και έκτείνας... έλεγον. 23. 8:82 (9:12) ‫ ־־ תחזקו ואכלתם‬ίσχύσαντες φ ά γ η τ ε . 24. 8:89 (10:2) ‫ ויאמר‬...‫ = ויען‬και φωνήσας... εΐπεν. 25. 8:92 (10:5) ‫ וישבע‬...‫ ־־ ויקם‬και άναστάς... ώρκισεν. 26. 9:1 (10:6) ‫ וילך‬...‫ ־= ויקם‬και ανασπάς... έπορεύθη. 27. 9:2 (10:6) ‫ אכל‬...‫ ~ וילך‬και αύλισθεις... έγεύσατο. 28. 9:7 (10:10) ‫ ויאמר‬...‫ = ויקם‬και άναστάς... εΐπεν. 29. 9:47 (Neh 8:6)‫ וישתחוו‬...‫= ויקדו‬προσπεσόντες... προσεκύνησαν. 30. 9:48 ( 8:8) ‫ ויבינו‬...‫=־ ויקראו‬άνεγίνωσκον... έμφυσιοΰντες. 31. 9:51 (8:10) ‫ = לפו אכלו‬βαδίσαντες ούν φάγετε. Such an abundance of data argues for the reconstruction of paratactic clauses in those cases where the Varlage has not come down to us: 32. 5:63 (Ezr 4:1) {‫ ־־ וישמעו )צרי יהודה ובנימן‬και άκούσαντες... ήλθοσαν έπιγνώναι. Presumably,...‫ ויבאו לדעת‬...‫וישמעו‬.

204

1 Esdras

33. 6:8 (5:8) (‫ ~ אזלנא )ליהוד מדינתא‬napayev6[1€v01... icai iXdovres... Kare\dfio\1€v. Presumably,...‫ והשכחגא‬...‫ ואתינא‬...‫אזלנא‬. 34. 8:91 (10:4)(‫ )כי עליך הדבר‬0‫ ־־ קו‬draaT&s emTeXei 270

Presumably, .‫קוםעשה‬ 1‫ ת‬spite of this clear and well-documented pattern, the interchange of parataxis and hypotaxis cannot serve as a fail-proof measure of literalism. There are any number of ways in which hypotactic constructions can be made and diverse degrees of rewriting may be involved. For example, the way in which the translator linked non-contiguous verbs is far more indicative of his method, than when the verbs are adjacent to each other. Then, too, there are verbs which are natural candidates for hypotactic treatment, such as ‫ ויאמר‬...‫ויקם‬/‫ויען־‬, and thus require a slight change only. In more complicated cases, the translator had to completely rewrite his Vorlage. One general, though obviously inaccurate, way of seeing the difference between translators is to actually count the number of verses in which such cases occur. In I Esd, we find a total of 35 cases out of 285 271

verses (excluding the lists), a ratio of 1:8.

In the parallel material of the

L X X , on the other hand, we find not even one. It seems that the translators of I Esd and I I Esd (and, in this case, also LXX-Chr) represent two extremes, one feeling free, or even compelled, to adapt the Vorlage to his target language, the other blindly adhering to the original.

10

This may, however, be an expansion by the translator, since he sometimes uses two words to express a given verb in order to better convey its meaning; see below.

'' The distribution is uneven. Chapters 2, 5 and 6 show an average of one change for every eight verses, Chapters 1 and 9 a ratio of 1:6, while in Chapters 7 and 8 the ratio drops to 1:14. There is no apparent reason for the differences. In the Aramaic parts, the ratio is 1:10, in the Hebrew languages were similarly treated.

1:8. This may only signify that both

205

Translation (b) Reformulation of Subordinate Clauses

In places where a finite verb + infinitive served as a condensed complex sentence, the translator replaced them with his favorite combination of finite verb + participle. 1. 5:57 (Ezr 3:10) ‫ להלל‬...‫ ־־ויעמידו‬και έστησαν... ύμνοϋντες. 2. 5:58 (3:11) ‫ ־־ ויענו)בהלל( ובהודת‬και έφώνησαν... όμολογοϋντες. 3. 5:59 (3:11) ‫ בהלל‬...‫ ־= הריעו‬έσάλπισαν... ύμνοΰντες. 4. 7:13 (3:10)01»‫ לדרש‬...‫הנבדל‬

χωρισθέντες... £ητοί!ντες.

The following examples are particularly interesting because the verbs change their role: the infinitive assumes the role of the finite verb, while the finite verb is replaced by a participle. 5. 1:38 (2 Chr 36:6) ‫ להליכו‬...‫ ~ ויאסרהו‬και δήσας αυτόν... ά π ή γ α γ ε ν . 6. 1:46 (36:13) ‫ משוב‬...‫־= ויקש‬κα'ι σκληρύνας... παρέβη. 7. 6:4 (Ezr 5:4) ‫ לבנא‬...‫ טעם‬...‫ ־=שם‬συντάξαντος... οικοδομεί τ ε . 8. 6:10 (5:9) ‫ למבניה‬...‫ טעם‬...‫ ~שם‬προστάξαντος οικοδομείτε. 9. 8:59 (8:30) ‫ להביא‬...‫ ־־וקבלו‬και οί παραλαβόντες... είσήνεγκαν. 10. 8:60 (8:31) ‫ ללכת‬...‫ =־ ונסעה‬και άνα£εύξαντες... είσήλθομεν. A finite verb + participle is introduced for a variety of other hypotactic formulations in the Vorlage: 11. 1:46 (2 Chr 36:13)‫מרד אשר השביעו‬... -~ ορκισθείς... έπιορκήσας άπέστη. 12. 5:54 (Ezr 3:8) ‫ החלו‬...‫ ~ לבואם‬παράγενόμενος... ήρξατο. 13. 8:88 (10:1) ‫ וכהתודתו‬...‫ = וכהתפלל‬και δ τ ε προσευχόμενος... άνθωμολογεϊτο. 14. 9:45 (Neh 8:5) ‫ היה‬...‫ כי‬...‫ = ויפתח‬και άναλαβών... προεκάθητο γαρ...

206

IEsdras

(c) Participle / Noun At times, the translator replaces a noun with a hypotactic clause: 1-6.1:20 (2 Chr 35:19) ‫ נעשה‬...‫ ~ למלכות‬βασιλεύοντος... ήχθη. In five other cases which indicate the year of reign, the translator replaces the nouns ‫ מלך‬and ‫ מלכות‬with a participle: 2:1 (Ezr 1:1), 6:16 (5:13), 6:23 (6:3), 8:5 (7:7), 8:1 (7:1). 7. 7:3 (6:14) ‫ ~ ומצלחין בנבואת‬και εΰοδα έγίνετο... προφητευόντων. Two nominal phrases are replaced by a participle: 8. 8:4 (7:6)‫ כיד ה׳‬...‫ ־= ויתן‬και εδωκεν... εύρόντος χάριν. 9. 8:6 (7:9) ‫ בא‬...‫ ־־ יסד המעלה‬εξελθόντες... παρεγενοντο.

(d) Participle / Finite Verb 1. 5:60 (Ezr 3:12)‫ אשר ראו‬...(‫ = )ורבים‬οί έωρακότες. 2. 8:25 (7:27)‫ אשר נתן‬...(‫ ־־)ברוך ה׳‬ό δούς. 3. 2:7 (1:5)(‫ לכל העיר‬...)‫ ~ ויקומו‬και καταστάντες. The participle was probably used in the first two cases because of the relative pronoun, while in the third, because of the usual function of ‫קום‬ as an auxiliary verb. Altogether, the hypotactic pattern of finite verb + participle appears nearly 70 times without being formally paralleled in the VorUige (i.e., one for every four verses). Not one of the parallel passages in the L X X used the participle. Were it not for the M T , this eminently Greek characteristic might have caused us to say that I Esd was originally written in Greek. Fortunately

207

Translation

for research, however, there is no doubt in this case that we are dealing 2 2

with an issue of translation technique. '

3. Other Changes in the Status of the Verb Though other changes in verbal syntax are less-well established, they are probably best attributed to the translator's idiosyncrasies. Let us mention three small groups: (a) Finite verbs replaced by infinitives, as demanded by the syntax, e.g., an imperative which governs the following verb: 1. 1:49(2Chr 36:17) ‫ = ויעל‬π ρ ο σ τ ά ξ ω αναβίβασα!,. 2. 2:22 (Ezr 4:19) ‫ ־־ ובקרו‬έπίσκεψασθαι. 3. 2:24 (4:22) ‫ ־= וזהירין הוו‬και προνοηθήναι. 4. 5:44 (2:69) ‫ ~ נתנו‬και δούναι. 5. 6:11 (5:10) ‫ ~ נכתב‬γράψαι. 6. 6:22 (6:1)‫ ־־ ובקרו‬έπισκεψασθαι. (b) Infinitives replaced by finite verbs: 1. 1:6 (2 Chr 35:6) ‫ ~ לעשות‬και ποιήσατε. 2. 1:13 (35:14) ‫ ־־בהעלות‬και άπήνεγκαν. 3. 8:12 (Ezr 7:14) ‫ ~ לבקרה‬όπως έπισκεψωνται..

(c) Participles rendered in various ways, in accord with the changing context; e.g.. in the past tense: 2 7 1

Black (1967), pp. 61-69, points out the frequent use of idiomatic hypotactic clauses in the Gospels (except for Mark) and Acts, but suggests that they were translated from the Aramaic.

208

I Esdras

1. 1:30 (2 Chr 35:25) ‫ ~ מתאבלים‬emvBt)aav. 2. 6:3 (Ezr 5:3) ‫ « אמרין‬elirav. 3. 9:48 (Neh 8:7) ‫= מבינים‬f818a(jK0v. 4. 9:50 (Neh 8:9) ‫ ־־ בוכים‬eicXcuov. 5. 9:53 (Neh 8:11) ‫ ־= מחשים‬eiceXeuov. In conclusion, we have to acknowledge the diversity and complexity of changes in verbal syntax, and hence, the difficulty in turning them into a criterion for comparative evaluation of translation techniques. Even keeping a simple tally of the changes can be problematic, seeing that some alterations are random, others systematic, some affect more than one verb, or even all of the surrounding text. As regards our translator, the mere knowledge of his work enables us to make more accurate use of the text for purposes of reconstruction.

d. Word-Order

The differences in word-order dramatically show the relationship between the study of translation technique and the attempt to determine m

the Vorlage.

Changes in word-order can basically be divided into three

groups: First, there are changes which evidently relate to the nature of the target language and obviously come from the hand of the translator. In placing the adjective before the noun, for example, an order which Hebrew does not permit, the translator is clearly striving to give his work an authentic Greek flavor. See Marquis (1986), pp. 59-94. Marquis offers a mathematical formula for measuring the literalism of a given translator based on deviations in word-order, so that he might take issue with our classifications below.

Translation

209

Second, there are changes which clearly go beyond the level of translation, This is the case when entire passages, sentences, phrases, sometimes even single words, appear in a different order but the rearrangement is not due to any considerations of the target language and is hence best attributed to the source from which the translator worked. On the whole, there are few differences of this kind between I Esd and the MT. Finally, there are changes which fall between these two groups, and are difficult to determine. In such cases, it is hard to know whether it was the Vorlage or the translator who first initiated the change, especially in cases where the translator was not committed to strict accuracy. I Esd offers dozens of examples where the change in word-order undoubtedly originated with the translator, seeing that they could not have happened in Hebrew or Aramaic. While we can theorize that the translator was responsible for other differences as well, ones which are not strictly 'Greek', we cannot rule out the possibility of a variant source.

1. Changes of Word-Order by the Translator Our translator, sensitive as he was to the target language, made changes in word-order not only in order to avoid usages unacceptable in Greek, but also to try to endow his text with a certain grace and natural fluency. Since Greek case-endings allow for a variegated word-order impossible in languages where the order determines a word's function in the sentence, the majority of changes which may safely be attributed to the translator are in noun phrases.

(a) Particles One hardly expects the translator of I Esd to adhere to word-order when particles are concerned. He makes free use of particles such as yap

210

I Esdras

(24 times), ούν (12 times) etc.; though, their parallels waw, ‫כי‬, etc. would suggest another place in the sentence. Sometimes he inserts the particle between two elements which represent one word in his Vorlage, a characteristically Greek formulation; e.g., 5:66 (Ezr 4:2) Q32 ‫ ~ כי‬ομοίως yap ύμΐν; 8:7 (7:10)‫ ~ כי עזרא‬ό γαρ Έ σ δ ρ α ς .

(b) Noun Phrases (1) Noun + Demonstrative 1. 6:28 (Ezr 4:2) ‫ ־־לגבריא א ל ן‬τούτοις τοις άνθρώπαις. 2. 8:62 (8:34) ‫ ~ בעת ההיא‬αύτη τη ώρα. 3. 8:84 (9:13) ‫ ~ פליטה כזאת‬τοιαύτην

ρίζαν.

(2) Noun + Adjective 4. 2:12 (Ezr 1:10) ‫ ־־כלים אחרים‬και άλλα σκεύη. 5. 8:73 (9:7) ‫ ־־ באשמה גדלה‬έν μεγάλη άμαρτίςι. 6. 8:83 (9:13) ‫ ־־ובאשמתנו הגדלה‬και τ ά ς μεγάλας αμαρτίας ημών. 7. 9:10 (10:12) ‫ = קול גדול‬μεγάλη τ η φωνή. 8. 9:18 (10:18) ‫ ־־־ נשים נכריות‬αλλογενείς γυναίκας. Month / year + ordinal: 9-16. 5:52 (Ezr 3:1) ‫ ~ החדש השביעי‬τού εβδόμου μηνός; similarly, 5:52 (3:6); 7:10 (6:19); 8:6 (7:8, 9), 8:60 (8:31); 9:37 (Neh 7:72), 9:40 (8:2). 17. 6:16 (Ezr 5:13) ‫ ־־בשנת חדה‬έν δέ τώ πρώτω έ τ ε ι . 18. 7:5 (6:15) ‫ ~ שנת שת‬τού έκτου έτους.

Translation

211

(3) Construct State Our translator was eager to rewrite phrases in the construct state (nomen rectum + nomen regens), a practice unacceptable in Greek syntax. He first introduces an equivalent of the nomen regens, and that of the nomen rectum only after. In its new position, the nomen regens is either expressed by an adjective or else functions as one. (a) The Nomen Regens expressed by an Adjective 19. 1:3 (2 Chr 35:3) ‫ ־־ ארון הקדש‬τ η ς άγιας κιβωτού. 20. 1:29 (35:24)‫־־ בקברות אבתיו‬έν τω πατρικώ τάφω. 21. 1:51 (36:18) ‫ ~ ואצרות ה מ ל ן ושריו‬και τ ά ς βασιλικάς άποθήκας. 22. 8:2 (Ezr 7:5) ‫ה כ ה ן הראש‬

274

~ του πρώτου ιερέως.

23. 8:18 (7:20) ‫ ~ בית מזי מלכא‬τον βασιλικού γα£οφυλακίου. 24. 8:24 (7:26) ‫ ~ לענש נכסין‬άργυρική ςημίςι. 25. 8:64 (8:36) ‫ ־־ אחשדרפני המלך‬τ ο ι ς βασιλικοί ς οίκονόμοις. 26. 8:69 (9:4) ‫ ־־ למנחת הערב‬τ η ς δειλινής θυσίας. 27. 9:42 (Neh 8:4) ‫ ~ מגדל עץ‬του ξύλινου βήματος. 28-34. In his translation of ‫אלהים‬/‫ כלי בית ה׳‬only part of the nomen regens, that is, ‫בית‬, is rendered by an adjective and placed before the nomen rectum; whereas, the parallel of ‫אלהים‬/‫ הי‬retains its place and function, as in 1:39 (2 Chr 36:7) ‫ ~ ומכלי ביןז הי‬και άπό των Ιερών σκευών του κυρίου, and six additional cases. 35. 8:17 (Ezr 7:19) For the MT's

1,‫מאניא‬Esd reads τά ιερά σκεύη του

κυρίου. On the basis of the above material, we believe that here, too, the Greek reflects: ‫מאני בית אלהא‬, or possibly ‫( מאניא די בית אלהא‬cf. examples 53-56). V A

This is not a proper construct; the regular form is indeed5)‫כהן הראש‬

times).

I Esdras

212 (β) The nomen regens functions as an adjective

The nomen regens, which continues to act as a noun, is introduced in between the elements which stand for the nomen rectum, and thus assumes the functions of an adjective: 36. 1:14 (2 Chr 35:15) ‫ ~ כמצות דוד‬κατά τ ά ύπό Δαυίδ τ ε τ α γ μ έ ν α . 37. 1:16 (35:16) ‫ מזבוו הי‬- το του κυρίου θυσιαστήριον. 38-41. 2:15 (Ezr 4:7)

£12

‫פרס‬

~ J0v Περσών βασιλέως; similarly,

(4:24); 5:53 (3:7); 8:1 (7:1). τ

42. 2:15 (4:7) ‫ « ו^י?<י ארתחששתא מלך פרס‬Έν_.δέ._ Ι>ί5 έπι Ά ρ τ α ξ έ ρ ξ ο υ του Περσών βασιλέως χρόνοις. 43. 5:48 (3:2) ‫ ־־ בתורת משה‬έν τ ή Μωυσέως βίβλω. 44. 5:50 (3:4) ‫ = את חג הסכות‬TJQV τ η ς σκηνοπηγίας έορτήν. 45. 5:53 (3:7) ‫ ~ אל ים יפוא‬ε ϊ ς τον Ί ό π π η ς λιμένα. 46. 5:70 (4:7) ‫ = מלכות דריוש‬τ η ς Δαρείου βασιλείας. 47. 6:29 (6:9) ‫ ־־ כמאמר כהניא די בירושלם‬καθώς άν οι ιερείς 01 έν Ιερουσαλήμ ϋπαγορεύσωσιν. 48. 7:9 (6:18) ‫ב משה‬22 = i n Μωυσέως βιβλίο. 49. 8:3 (7:6) ‫ ~ בתורת משה‬έν τώ Μωυσέως νόμω. 50. 8:21 (7:23) ‫עם אלה‬2 ‫ =־‬τον του θεού νόμον. 51. 9:13 (10:14) ‫ ־־ ועמהם זקני עיר ועיר‬και έκαστου δέ τόπου τους πρεσβυτέρους. 52. On the basis of this pattern - example 48 in particular - we reconstruct the unparalleled text of 7:6 (6:16) έν τ η Μωυσέως βίβλω by ‫בספר משה‬.

Translation

213

(4) Other Possessive Compounds A sequence of genitives is sometimes broken up by the particle ‫;די‬ these cases met with the same treatment accorded to simple constructs: 53. 2:18 (4:15) ‫ ~ גספר ד כ מ י א די אבהוזך‬έν τοις άπό των πατέρων σου βιβλίοις, 54. 2:25 (4:23) ‫ ~ פרשגו נשתוגא די ארתחששת מלכא‬των παρά του βασιλέως Άρταξέρξου : χ ^ φ έ ν τ ω ν . The following two examples are mutually instructive: 55.6:21 (5:17) ‫ = בבית גנזיא די מלכא‬έν τοΐς βασιλικοίs βιβλιοφυλακίοις του κυρίου βασιλείας. Βιβλιοφυλακίοις probably reflects ‫בבית ספריא די גנזיא‬, as in the following verse. This example is further complicated by a double translation of ‫ ;די מלכא‬the first (βασιλικοίς) corresponding to the pattern described here, the second (του κυρίου βασιλέως) to the Vorlage. Elsewhere, as well, the translator readily replaced the noun ‫ מלך‬with the adjective βασιλικός (see examples 21, 23, 26). 56. 6:22 (6:1) ‫ בבית ספריא די מזיא‬- έν τοίς βασιλικόίς βιβλιοφυλακίοις. Βασιλικοΐς probably reflects an additional ‫ מלכא‬π , in accordance with the previous verse. In sum, phrases in the construct state were apt to stimulate changes in word-order. It is worth noticing that our translator found other ways to evade constructs, especially by simply turning the nomen regens into an adjective. The above-noted data can be characterized by two points: One, the desire to change the word-order is rooted entirely in the fundamental difference between the original language and the target language. Not one of these cases makes us think that a different word-order existed in the

214

1 Esdras

Vorlage. Two, there are more than enough cases to prove the characteristic work habits of the translator. Time and again we find him attentive to the needs of the target language, and not the least reluctant to rework his Vorlage into a natural sounding Greek text. In the following cases, the Greek is less transparently different from the Hebrew and the categories involved less well-defined. The evidence is therefore too inconclusive to claim ti>at the translator preferred one kind of construction over another; even though, the changes can probably be attributed to his hand.

(5) Appositions 57. 2:3 (Ezr 1:2) ‫ ~ כרש מלך פרס‬ό βασιλεύς Περσών Κύρος. The Greek word-order cannot possibly reflect a variant, nor did the translator choose to use it on other occasions. 58. 8:44-45 (8:17) ‫ הנתונים ג כ ס פ י א ה מ ק ו ם‬...‫ ~ בכספיא המקום‬τον έν τώ τόπψ του γαζοφυλακίου... και τοις έν τώ τόπω γαζοφύλαξιν. l i t e translator changed both the order and sense of the words, taking the place name to mean 'the place of the treasury'. 59. 2:7 (1:5) For the MT's ‫ליהודה ובנימן‬, I Esd reads: τ η ς Ίουδα και Βενιαμίν φυλής. This presumably stands for ‫ל)שבט! יהודה ובנימן‬: cf. 5:63 (4:1); 9:5 (10:9), where φυλή comes first, retaining the order of our conjectured Vorlage. While these examples are instructive in themselves, they do not allow us to draw further conclusions in regard to changes in the word-order of appositions.

215

Translation (6) Numbers

The differences relating to numbers can be even trickier because in both Hebrew and Greek numbers can come either before or after the noun. The data point to a clear trend. When the noun precedes the number I Esd, always retains the order. But when the noun comes after the number, the order is usuallv reversed.

275

60. 1:17 (2 Chr 35:17) ‫שבעת ~ ימים‬.

62. 1:33 (36:2) ‫ חדשים‬- ‫ושלשה‬.

61. 1:33 (36:2) ‫שלוש ועשרים ~ שנה‬.

63. 1:34 (36:3) ‫ ככר כסף‬- ‫ומאה‬.

64. 1:37 (36:5) ‫עשרים וחמש ~ שנה‬.

68. 1:44 (36:11) ‫ שנה‬- ‫עשרים ואחת‬.

65. 1:41 (36:9) ‫ שנים‬- ‫שמונה‬.

69. 1:44 (36:11) ‫ שנה‬- ‫ואחת עשרה‬.

66. 1:42 (36:9) ‫ושלשה ~ חדשים‬.

70. 1:55 (36:21: ‫ שבעים ~ שנה‬.

67. 1:42 (36:9) ‫ועשרת ~ ימים‬.

71-80. 8:31-40 (Ezr 8:4-14) ‫הזכרים ~ מאתים‬. 81-82.8:56 (8:26) ‫ ככר‬- ‫ מאה‬,‫מאה ~ לככרים‬.

The question is how many of these cases can be attributed to the Vorlage, and thus, to a preference known in Late Biblical Hebrew.

276

In

our own opinion, such cases are probably best attributed to the translator himself. First of all, in some of the cases adduced from Chapter 1 a different word-order in the Vorlage is impossible. Moreover, many of them come from the concluding formulae which were reformulated by the translator in other respects. Finally, we have already seen the changes of ‫ י ־‬5

2

The order is left untouched in

' P o l z i n (1976), pp. 58ff. 6

8:11,‫שבעתיעטהי‬

( E z r 7:14)

216

I Esdras

word-order in regard to ordinals (examples 9-18 above), changes which must surely originate with the translator. It seems, therefore, that the translator is at least partly responsible for the changes, although, not because the Greek requires them.

277

It is worth noticing that the translator of Daniel

did not bother to change the order and left the number before the noun when it appeared that way in his Vorlage, e.g., Dan 7:2, 3, 5, 17; 8:8, 22.

(7) The Word ‫כל‬ Quite unexpectedly we find only two random examples of a different word-order in relation to the place of ‫ כל‬/ π ά ς , probably another free reformulation on the part of the translator: 83.5:51 (Ezr 3:5) ‫~ ולכל מועדי הי המקדשים‬και εορτών πασών ήγιασμένων, 84. 9:53 (Neh 8:11) ‫ ־־ לכל העם‬τω δήμω π α ν τ ί . In sum, there is a wealth of noun phrases which lured the translator into changing the word-order of his Vorlage in order to achieve a more stylized Greek.

(c) Nominal Clauses The nominal clause presented the translator with a number of ways to change the word-order of his Vorlage. Considering his liberal use of είναι, there is little wonder that he sometimes moved the copula around. In the first two cases below, the Hebrew does not permit the word-order implied by the Greek, in which the copula comes between the noun and its adjectival predicate: 1. 8:80 (Ezr 9:11) ‫( ארץ גדה ה י א‬...‫ =־)הארץ‬ή γή... εστίν γή μεμολυσμένη. 2. 9:49 (Neh 8:9) ‫ ־־ היום קדש הוא‬ή ήμερα αϋτη έστιν αγία. 2

" Blass-Debrunner (1961), § 4 7 4 ( 1 ) : "Numerals are more often placed first in the Gospels. But in lists, statements of date and distance... they usually come after".

217

Translation

Similarly, we would not expect the predicate to come first in possessive sentences: 3. 2:20 (Ezr 4:16) ‫ = לא איתי לך‬σοι ούκέτι έσται. 4. 8:75 (9:8)(‫ ־־)ועתה כמעט רגע( היתה )תחנה‬ήμΐν έγενήθη. While this last example would suggest a reading of ‫ ה י ת ה לנו‬, which our translator chose to invert, such a reading is testified in MS Β alone. All the other MSS read έγενήθη ήμΐν. In the following examples, we can easily discern the hand of the translator as he uses one of his favorite methods: the insertion of an equivalent of one word between the elements which form the equivalent of another: 5. 8:3 (7:6) ‫~ והוא סופר מהיר‬ώς γραμματεύς ευφυής ων. 6. 5:48 (3:2) ‫ ~ ככתוב בתורת משה איש ה א ל ה י ם‬ακολούθως τ ο ι ς ε ν τ ή Μωυσέως βιβλίο τού άνθρωπου τού θεού διηγορευμένοις. 7. 2:24 (4:22) ‫ ~ להנזקת מלכיו‬ε ί £ το βασιλείς ένογλήσαι. 8. 2:19 (4:15) ‫ ~ ומהנזקת מלכין ומדע‬και βασιλείς και πόλεις ενοχλούσα.

(d) Relative Clauses The relative clause, though comprised of more than one word, is sometimes treated by the translator in the same way as an adjective or a nomen regens. Such is to say that he places the relative clause before its antecedent. Naturally, this would not be possible in either Hebrew or Aramaic. 1. 6:7 (Ezr 5:6) ηγεμόνες.

01

~

‫א די בעבר נהרא‬

218

1 Esdras There seems to be a similar case in 6:26 (6:6), but the double translation

involved there, makes it unclear whether there is indeed a change of order. 2. 8:17 (7:10) ‫ ־= )ושאר( חשחות בית אלהך די יפל לך‬δσα άν ύ π ο π ί π τ η σοι εις την χρείαν του ίεροΰ του θεοί! σου. In the following example we again encounter our translator's favorite practice, i.e., the insertion of a relative clause between the components of the antecedent: 3.8:41 (8:15) ‫ = אל הנהר ה ב א אל אהוא‬επί τόν λεγόμενον θεράν ποταμόν. On the basis of this pattern we may reconstruct the following readings: 4. 8:50 (8:21) ‫ = ולטפנו‬τε και τοις συνοΰσιν ήμΐν τέκνοις ημών. Reconstructed as:(‫ולטפנו)אשר עמנו‬. 2) 1:45 .5 Chr 36:12)‫ ~ מלפני ירמיהו הנביא‬άπό των ρηθεντων λόγων υπό Ι ε ρ ε μ ί ο υ του προφήτου. Reconstructed as:!‫מלפני)דברי( ירמיהו הנביא)אשר דבר‬. 6.1:46 (36; 13)‫ אלהיס‬0‫בב אשר השביעו בש‬2 ‫ » וגם במלך נבוכדנאצר‬και ορκισθείς άπό τουβασιλέως Ναβουχοδονοσόρ τώ ονόματι του κυρίου έπιορκήσας άπέστη. The variant word-order might have originated in the Vorlage, seeing that in the M T the antecedent and relative clause are awkwardly separated by ‫מרד‬. However, since the entire sentence was rewritten by the translator in order to form a passive construction, the change in word-order may have come from his hand as well. A different Vorlage may account for the following example: 7. 8:13 (Ezr 7:15) ‫־־־ )ולהיבלה כסף ודהב( די מלכא ויעטהי התנדבו לאלה ישראל‬ τώ κυρίω του ‫י‬Ισραήλ ά ηύξάμην έγώ τε και 01 φίλοι.

Translation

219

2. Changes of Doubtful Attribution In view of all the above-noted material which clearly shows the translator's interference in matters of word-order, it is difficult to ascribe other changes in word-order to the Vorlage with any degree of confidence. At the same time, however, we cannot ignore the possibility that the translator found the inverted word-order in his source to begin with, in cases where the Vorlage would permit such an order. It should be noted that there may be a difference between Hebrew and Aramaic in reference to word-order. (a) Nominal Phrases (1) Silver and Gold / Gold and Silver Hurvitz employed the word-pair ‫כסף וזהב‬/‫ זהב וכסף‬as proof of the phenomenon he termed 'diachronic chiasmus'; that is, the changed order of word-pairs testifies to the development of language patterns over time."

8

According to this view, a change of this sort is not merely a stylistic feature, but also a diachronic linguistic development proven by the distribution of data.

279

Indeed, of the forty times the pair 'gold-silver'

appears in the Bible, thirty of them occur in late biblical books, a ratio which seems to speak for itself. The factor of linguistic development must be at work here.

2110

The same tendency is mirrored in I Esd. While in the MT, the pair occurs 9 times in the classical order 'silver and gold', and 4 times - 'gold and silver'; in I Esd, the ratio is 5 to 8, as we see in the table below; m

2 7 5

281

Hurvitz (1971), pp. 248-255. Avishur (1974), pp. 253ff, questioned this analysis in his study of word-pairs, claiming that the change in order is a general stylistic phenomenon that has nothing to do with diachronic development.

2 8 0

The shifting value of the metals may have affected the linguistic change; see Hurvitz, ibid, p. 250, note 14.

281

Cases in which the two words appear several words apart arc not included, since

220

I Esdras Hebrew

Aramaic

‫כסף וזהב‬

‫זהב וכסף‬

‫כסף ודהב‬

‫דהב וכסף‬

MT

6

2

3

2

IEsd

5

3

5

Though sparse, the data are highly instructive: (a) I Esd changes MT's 'silver-gold' into 'gold-silver' four times. There is no change in the opposite direction; (b) In the Hebrew sections, the order is changed only once; (c) In the Aramaic sections, 'silver-gold' gives way to 'gold-silver' on all three occasions; 'silver-gold' thus disappears from the Aramaic sections. The data clearly show that the differences do not originate with the translator since it is hard to imagine that he would insist on changing the order in the Aramaic sections but leave the Hebrew sections almost untouched. The evidence of Daniel is as always instructive: the data are almost evenly distributed in both the Hebrew and Aramaic sections, and rendered in the same order in the L X X . Considering the affinity between the translators of I Esd and LXX-Daniel,

282

we may conclude that neither

reveal a preference in either direction, and that both of them faithfully rendered that which they found in their sources. A possible linguistic development in the Vorlage is supported by the distribution of the phrases in Aramaic documents. Indeed, we find ‫ כסף ודהב‬in the Old Aramaic inscriptions of Br-Rkb and Pnmu; whereas, the Elephantine documents, 283

like Biblical Aramaic, make use of both ‫ כסף ודהב‬and .‫דהבוכסף‬

Finally,

it is worth noting that in the Story of the Three Youths, the order is 'gold and silver' both times it occurs. they are less likely to be rewritten. Indeed, 'silver' and 'gold' arc used on four separate occasions in relation to various utensils, all in the Hebrew sections, twice in both ways. I Esd preserves the order of the M T . 2 8 2

Their similar method of translation was recognized long ago. Some scholars even took diem to be one and the same author; see Riessler (1899), pp. 52-56: Torrey (1910), p. 84.

2 8 5

See Hurvitz, ibid, p. 251.

221

Translation (2) The King X (title-name) / X the King (name-title)

Another expression which is used in a different order in the M T and in I Esd, again predominantly in the Aramaic sections, is the apposition composed of the king's name and title. Here too a factor of linguistic development comes into play. In biblical Hebrew, titles such as ‫' כהן‬priest' or ‫' נביא‬prophet' are commonly preceded by the name. The title ‫מלך‬, however, may either precede or follow the name, and the distribution is of interest: In SamuelKings, the prevailing order is title-name, as opposed to the order of other titles; whereas, in Chr, both patterns appear with equal frequency. It seems, therefore, that in later biblical Hebrew the usual order name-title influenced the use of ‫מלך‬. This is also the customary order in Rabbinic Hebrew.

284

In the Aramaic sections of Ezr and Daniel, the name ordinarily precedes the title.

285

In respect to the title of ‫מלכא‬, however, we do find some

fluctuation. Ezr is the more consistent, with the order being name-title (‫ מלכא‬x) in all 14 cases. This is also the number of times it appears in Daniel as well, but here the reverse order (x ‫ )מלכא‬also appears on 6 occasions. The title-name order is unexpected in Aramaic since in both Ancient and Egyptian Aramaic the proper name precedes the title. It could have been borrowed from the common Greek pattern as found in the papyri and inscriptions of the last centuries

B.C.E.

Such borrowing, however,

is not characteristic of the development of Aramaic in general, since in Late Aramaic the name-title pattern still holds sway.

286

Peretz(1968), pp. 129-133. ‫ ר ח ו ם בעל טעם‬and the like (13 times in all in Ezr), or3)‫בלטשצר ר ב ח ר ט ו מ י א‬

times,

and another 5 with an apposition that is not an official title, e.g., ‫ עבדוהי די א ל ה א‬in Daniel). Bauer-Leander (1927), p. 93, say only that the two types are interchangeable. Muraoka (1972), p. 23, counted 45 appositional phrases beginning with the proper name, and only one ease in the opposite order.

222

I Esdras Let us take a closer look at the way the data are distributed throughout

I Esd and the MT: ‫מלנאג‬

‫גמלנא‬

paaiXeus X

X (JaaiXevs

(ktatXeug X

X (JaaiXeus

14

7

2

MT I Esd

1

Story

1

0

(

+

2

)

xpan

2

r

6

‫\המ?ך‬

2

‫׳‬

(

5

The dominance of the j3aa1Xei‫׳‬s x pattern (19:4) may be attributed to the translator's own preference, given his affinity to contemporary epigraphic sources. There are, however, several indications that he might simply have translated what he found in his Vorlage: (a) I f the translator bothered to change his source on ten occasions, why did he leave the reverse order another four? (b) The interchange in 8:8 (Ezr 7:11) is particularly interesting, with I Esd reading x fktaiXeus against both the M T and the dominant order in I Esd: (c) In the Story of the Three Youths, we find the title-name pattern only one out of six times, a ratio which fits the general Aramaic preference of Ezr, rather than the Greek of I Esd;

288

(d) The data for Daniel, which may serve as a control-group, also point in the same direction. There the normal order is x PaaiXevs (22:7), unlike that which we find in I Esd. Apparently, the translator of Daniel also left his Vorlage unchanged; (e) The fact that both patterns appear in equal proportion in 2-4 Mace shows that neither dominated the Greek of their authors. In view of these considerations, it would seem safe to conclude that the translator of I Esd had little reason to change the order in his source time and again. Given the nature of this translation, we could hypothesize that the title-name order sprang from his own stylistic preference, and Twice the phrase has no equivalent in I E s d , yet there are also two cases in which the order x tcbn in 1 Esd has no equivalent in the M T . ;

We may note here that it does not fit the norm in the Hebrew portions either, a fact that may have its consequences concerning the language of the Vorlage of the story.

+

223

Translation

reject any possibility of a variant (x N:£>n), otherwise not attested in Ezr. The fact is, however, that this pattern appears six times in the Aramaic of the Book of Daniel. Hence, it is not impossible that it was present in I Esd's source to begin with. I f this unusual order does indeed signal a later linguistic development, we can tentatively suggest that I Esd's Vorlage represents a later stage than the M T in this respect, since it already reveals die tendency demonstrated by the Aramaic in the Book of Daniel.

289

(b) Verbal Clauses

In discussing the subject of verbal clauses, we stand on even shakier ground. Since Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic all tolerate variation in the order of the components in the verbal clause, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine the extent to which the translator changed the word29

order of his Vorlage, ° In general, the natural tendencies of the languages can be neatlydivided between Greek on the one hand, and Hebrew and Aramaic on the other. While the verb usually comes towards the beginning of the sentence in Semitic languages, this is not true of the Indo-European languages. Scholars of the New Testament have often commented on this striking difference between the two language groups, and in fact, see this as one of 2

the clear-cut signs of a Semitic substratum behind the New Testament. " It is not that sentences beginning with verbs constitute improper Greek, 289

Charles (1929), pp. c-ci, draws far-reaching conclusions concerning the date of the Book of Daniel on the basis of the discussed word-order: "The evidence of this order of words seems in itself conclusive as to the Book ot Daniel being not earlier than me second century B.C.".

'

w

For the Aramaic, which again turns out to be our main concern, see Bauer-Leander (1927), pp. 99a-c, lOOp, 101. In the last section, the freedom of word-order in verbal sentences is illustrated through examples of various combinations of subjectverb-object.

3,1

Black (1967), pp. 50-5!.

224

I Esdras

but that the sheer frequency of their occurrence gives the text a Semitic flavor.

292

When the verb comes towards the beginning of the sentence, but

not actually at its start, the distinction becomes even cloudier. One thing, however, does seem certain: It is hard to imagine the translator seeking to move the verb towards the beginning of the sentence. Against this background, the relationship between I Esd, or L X X Daniel for that matter, and the MT, is rather surprising. Had we found that the translation tended to place the verb later in the sentence, we would have seen this as a syntactic reformulation expected of any translator concerned with producing a flowing Greek style. The facts, however, prove different. Of the approximately 25 cases in which I Esd and the M T have the verbs in different places, only 5 appear later in 1 Esd than the MT. No less interesting is that out of the remaining 20 cases in which the verb occurs earlier in I Esd, 13 come in the Aramaic sections of the book. The ratio between the Hebrew and Aramaic is thus 2:1, which is highly disproportionate considering that the Aramaic comprises only one fourth of the text. Other differences, such as the order of noun-modifiers, or interchanges of parataxis/hypotaxis and active/passive, which definitely derive from the translator, are more equally distributed throughout the Hebrew and Aramaic sections - four cases in Hebrew versus one in Aramaic. Why, then, would the translator make most changes in verb placement in the Aramaic material? The immediate, and probably most logical, conclusion is that for at least part of the Aramaic material the translator found these changes already present in his Vorlage. Indeed, the sources anticipate a shift in the position of the verb. Evidently, while in Old Aramaic the verb appears towards the beginning 2

of the sentence, as in other Semitic languages, '" in Official Aramaic, the 2 9 1

Blass & Debrunner (1961), § 4 7 2 , point out that the verb can stand at the beginning of a sentence in 'non-biblical' Greek as well; although, this is usual only for verbs of speech.

m

Degen (1969), p. 81: "Kennzeichend für den Verbalsatz ist das finite Verb, das den Satz eröffnet".

225

Translation

verb comes later, apparently under the influence of Akkadian. In addition, the location of the verb is instrumental in determining whether Biblical Aramaic belongs to the western or eastern branch. The tendency of Biblical Aramaic to place the verb later in the sentence seems a sure sign of 294

eastern influence. 1 Esd steers a middle course by reflecting a word-order which is less 'eastern' than the Aramaic of the M T and closer to that of the Genesis-Apocryphon and the Aramaic Targum of Job from Qurnran. In these texts, the verb comes either at the start of the sentence or just before the subject, the object, and other parts of the sentence. I f Biblical Aramaic shows the same eastern influence as Official Aramaic - and this is only to be expected in documents emanating from the court of Persia we can also say that it became more westernized over the years with the verb gradually moving towards the beginning of the sentence. Moreover, it appears that later Aramaic indeed reverted to the norms of western practice.

295

We can probably assume that complex processes such as these

account for at least some of the differences between I Esd and the MT. The situation in Daniel is much the same with 30 (!) cases in which the verb comes earlier in the L X X than in the MT, all occuring in the Aramaic material. As in I Esd, here too we find a great deal of latitude in the placement of the verb.

296

Baumgartner (1927), p. 128: "Die Wortstellung des B A . . . von der sonst im Westsemilischen herrsehenden abweicht, indem Subject, Object oder adverbiale Bestimmung dem verbalen Prädikat ebensogut voransehen wie folgen können"; Kutscher (1977), p. 105: ' T h e characteristics of the Eastern type of A arc... (4) The object (often) precedes the infinitive, (5) The object (often) precedes the finite verb, (6) The subject (often) precedes the verb"; see also Kitchen (1965), p. 76. See Kutscher (1977), pp. 33-34, on the language of the Genesis Apocryphon: "The 'Semitic" type... is prevalent: 1. The subject generally follows the verb. 2. The accusative object generally follows die verb. 3. The accusative object always follows the infinitive". E.g., ‫ נחוא‬- ‫( ופשרא‬Dan 2:4).2)(‫( ובתיכון מלו ~יתשמון‬2:5), ‫ שאל‬- ‫ ד י ו מ ל כ א‬. T 1 ) , ‫ינתן‬ 5:7) ‫ לה‬- ‫( )די( זמן‬2:16), ‫ שתה‬- ‫( ח מ ר א‬5:1), ‫ ותלתי כ מ ל כ ו ת א ~ ישלט‬...‫ ) א ר נ ו נ א ~ ילבש‬. In the Hebrew portion of Daniel, the verb changes position only twice and in both cases the Greek has it later in the sentence (10:13 ‫נותרתי שם‬, 11:36 ‫)ידבר נפלאות‬.

226

I Esdras Due to the complexity of the subject, it would be unwise to make

definite conclusions concerning the nature of the Aramaic underlying I Esd. Some of the differences may reflect a Hellenistic Greek tendency. Just how different the syntax of Hellenistic was from its Classical model we can see in Polybius' practice of placing the verb towards the beginning of subordinate (especially relative) clauses, and of administrative language 2

placing the verb before a proper-noun subject. '" Therefore, in cases such as 6:17 (Ezr 5:14) ‫ ~ די נבוכדנצר הנפק‬a d£fj1/ey1ce‫׳‬1 NapouxoSovoaop, the wording of the relative clause could just as easily reflect a tendency in the Greek as a different Aramaic Vorlage. However, it is not easy to establish such a tendency with our translator in view of a case such as ‫־־ די שכן שמה‬ ou

TO

6vo\1a auTou

6TTIK€KX1]TCU,

6:32 (6:12); in which, the verb in the

relative clause is rather postponed in 1 Esd in comparison with the MT. Generally, there is good reason to think that the change occurred in the Vorlage: (1) In spite of the developments in the Greek language, the translator would have little reason to re-order his Vorlage when the Greek not only tolerates the order found i n the MT, but actually prefers it; (2) Tire word-order presumably reflected in I Esd is as natural as the Aramaic of the MT, a fact which makes it reasonable to assume a development in the Aramaic. (I) The Verb precedes the Subject In the following subordinate clauses, the translator may have preferred to have the verb precede the subject, as noted above: 1-2.6:17, 25 (Ezr 5:14; 6:5) ‫־־ די נבוכדנצר הנפק‬ a c^nt/eyicev Naj3ouxo8ovo06p.

Blass & Debrunner (!961), §472,

Translation

227

3. 8:13 (7:15) ‫ ־־ די מלכא ויעטוהי התנדבו‬ά ηύξάμην ε γ ώ τε και 0L φίλοι.

298

4. 6:14 (5:12) ‫ ־= להן מן די הרגזו א ב ה ת נ א‬και έ π ε ί 01 π α τ έ ρ ε ς ημών παραπικράναντες ήμαρτον. The Hebrew material affords this example: 5. 9:50 (Neh 8:9) ‫ ~ כי בוכים כל העם‬και π ά ν τ ε ς έκλαιον.

(2) The Verb Precedes the Object and its other Complements 6. 2:24 (Ezr 4:21) ‫ ־־ וקריתא דך לא תתבנא‬του οίκοδομήσαι την πόλιν. 7. 6:10 (5:9) ‫ ־= ביתא דנה למבניה‬οικοδομείτε τον οίκον τούτον. 8. 6:16 (5:13) ‫ ־־בית אלהא דנה לבנא‬οίκοδομήσαι τον οίκον τούτον. 9. 6:18 (5:15) ‫ ־־ אל מאניא שא‬άπενέγκαντι πάντα τά σκεύη τ α ύ τ α . 10. 6:24 (6:4) ‫ מן בית מלכא תתיהב‬- δοθήναι εκ τ ο ΰ οίκου Κύρου του βασιλέως. 11. 8:11 (7:14) ‫ = כ ל קבל די מן קדם מלכא ושבעת יעטהי שליח‬δεδοκται έμοί τε και τοις ε π τ ά φίλοις συμβουλευταΐς. 12. 8:16 (7:18) ‫ ~ בשאר כספא ודהבה למעבד‬ποιήσαι χρυσίω και άργυρίω. 13. 8:16 (7:18)‫ ־= כרעות אלהכם תעבדון‬επιτελεί κατά τό θέλημα τούθεού σου. Two examples occur in the Hebrew material: 14. 8:69 (9:4) ‫ ~ ואלי יאספו‬και έπισυνήχθησαν πρός με. It is important to note that in this case the L X X and the Peshitta agree with I Esd against the MT. 298

The reformulation here also involves a shift 10 the first person.

228

I Esdras

15. 9:55 (Neh 8:13)‫ ־־ וביום השני נאספו‬και έπισυνήχθησαν... Since I Esd ends with this verb, we can only conjecture that a parallel of ‫ ביום השני‬followed the verb. Let us also take note of the following example which proves somewhat more complicated since it occurs in a casus pendens. It is possible that the equivalent chosen for ‫ נדב‬required the change of order: 16. 5:43 (Ezr 2:68) ‫ ~ התנדבו לבית האלהים להעמידו‬εύξαντο έγειραι τον οικον. There are only three places in I Esd where the change occurs in the opposite direction, so that the complement precedes the verb, against the MT: 17. 2:24 (4:22) ‫ ~ למעבד על דנה‬παρά ταύτα γένηται, 18. 6:31 (6:11) ‫ ־= וזקיף יתמחא עלוהי‬και έπι τούτου κρεμασθήναι. And in Hebrew: 19. 1:53 (2 Chr 36:20) ‫ ־־ ו ע ל השארית‬και τους επίλοιπους ά π ή γ α γ ε ν .

(3) The Verb at the Beginning of the Sentence 20. 2:22 (Ezr 4 : 1 8 ) ‫ ~ נשתונא די שלחתון עלינא מפרש קרי ק ד מ י‬Ά ν έ γ ν ω ν την έπιστολήν ην πεπόμφατε πρός με. 21. 2:25 (4:23) ‫ ~ אדין מן די פרשנן נשתונא די ארתחששת מלכא קרי ק ד ם‬τότε άναγνωσθέντων των παρά τουβασιλέως Άρταξερξυυ γραφέντων. 22-23. 1:7 (2 Chr 35:8) ‫ושריו לנדבה לעם לכהנים וללוים הרימו חלקיה וזכריהו‬ ‫ ויחיאל נגידי בית האלהים לכהנים נתנו‬- εδόθη κ α τ ' έ π α γ γ ε λ ί α ν τ φ λαώ και τ ο ι ς ίερεΰσιν και Λ ε υ ί τ α ι ς και έδωκε ν Χελκίας και Ζαχαρίας καΐ Ήσύηλος οι έ π ι σ τ ά τ α ι τού'ιεροϋτόίς Ίερεΰσιν. 24-25. 1:41-42 (36:9) ‫בן שמונה שנים יהויכין במלכו ושלשה חדשים ועשרה ימים‬ ‫ =־ מלך‬ότε γ ά ρ ανεδείχθη, ην ετών δέκα οκτώ, βασιλεύει δε μήνας τρεις και ημέρας δέκα.

Translation

229

The two transpositions in this last example are probably related and may well have been made by the translator, given his tendency to rework the formulae. In fact, all the changes in word-order under this heading seem to be part of a larger reformulation. Such changes add weight to the assumption that the translator was responsible for other changes in wordorder as well. In conclusion, some of the changes in word-order which involve the verb are part of more extensive paraphrases by the translator, others may reflect the tendency of Hellenistic Greek. In the final analysis, however, it seems that we are still left with a number of cases which reflect a different Vorlage and attest to a later development in the Aramaic language.

(4) The Place of the Verbal Complements The following examples do not seem to have any unifying feature which would explain the position of the verbal complements. Nor, in trying to determine whether the reformulation occurred in the Vorlage or the translation, is there anything to tilt the scales in one direction or the other. (a) Subject ~ Complement

1. 5:40 (Ezr 2:63) • ‫ )ויאמר( התרשתא ל ה‬- carrots Nee|1ias KCU. ' ArBaptas. This first example is a good case in point. The change involves a minor syntactic reformulation which could easily be ascribed to the translator were it not for the fact that the Lucianic MSS to both Ezr and Neh 7:65 and the Peshitta to Ezr agree with I Esd. In addition, neither the Vulgate to Ezr nor MS B to Neh reflect ‫ להם‬in any way, thus pointing to its instability in the text. Hence, the change in word-order must have occurred in the Vorlage.

230

I Esdras

2. 1:41 (2 Chr 36:8)‫ ־־)וימלך( יהויכין בנו תחתיו‬ά ν τ ' αυτού ‫י‬Ιωακείμ ό υιός αύτοΰ. 3. 1:26 (35:22) ‫ ~ )ולא הסב( יאשיהו פניו‬εαυτόν Ί ω σ ί α ς . 4. 6:7 (Ezr5:6) ‫ על דריוש מלכא‬...‫־= )די שלח( תתני‬Δαρείω... Σισίννης.

(β) Adverb - Object

5. 1:1 (2 Chr 35:1) ‫ = )ויעש יאשיהו( בירושלם פסח‬τό πάσχα έν Ιερουσαλήμ. 6. 8:10 (Ezr 7:13) ‫ ־= )למהך( לירושלם עמך‬σοι εις 'Ιερουσαλήμ. And vice versa: 7. 5:53 (3:7)‫ ־־)להביא( עצי ארזים מן הלבנון‬εκ του Λιβάνου ξύλα κέδρινα. 8. 1:17 (2 Chr 35:17) ‫( את הפסח בעת ההיא‬...‫ ~)ויעשו‬έν τω καιρώ τούτω το πάσχα.

(γ) Transposing Adverbs of Time and Place 9. 8:28 (Ezr 8:1) ‫־= )העלים עמי( במלכות ארתחשסתא המלך מבבל‬έκ Βαβυλώνας έν τή βασιλείςιΆρταξέρξου τοΰ βασιλέως. 10. 9:5 (10:9) ‫( ירושלם לשלשת הימים‬...‫ ־־ )ויקבצו‬έν τ ρ ι σ ί ν ή μ έ ρ α ι ς εις ' Ιερουσαλήμ. Unlike the question of verb placement, where the Aramaic examples are disproportionately high, only two of these ten examples come from the Aramaic material. There is no obvious pattern to these changes, all of which could have originated as easily in the Vorlage as the translation.

Translation

231

3. Probable Change of Word-Order in the Vorlage Changes made at the level of Vorlage would not normally fall within the purview of a chapter dealing with translation technique. When so many areas remain open to doubt, however, it becomes less easy to draw the line. Even cases which do not bear the particular stamp of the translator could have originated with him, and we have already had ample opportunity to see that preserving the word-order of his Vorlage was not one of his top priorities. Whether he made changes in the word-order for absolutely no reason at all is another question. The above-noted cases have one thing in common: they all come from the realm of syntax and style, and may thus be reasonably ascribed to the sensitivity of the translator to the quality of his target language. In the following texts, we find other factors at work, ones which are characteristic of the process of transmission rather than translation. This is true even of the minor changes, as when ‫ כל‬precedes different nouns, and certainly of the more complex cases, in which entire clauses are moved around. The following examples, then, would seem to suggest a different text. 1. 1.19 (2 Chr 35:18)‫ ־־ וכל יהודה וישראל‬και 01 Ιουδαίοι και πάς Ισραήλ, possibly reflecting: ‫ויהודה וכל ישראל‬. 8:52.2(Ezr 8:22) ‫ ־־ על כל מבקשיו לטובה‬μετά των έπι£ητούντων αυτόν εις πάσαν έπανόρθωσιν, which may represent: ‫על מבקשיו לכל טובה‬. 2) 1:12-13 .3 Chr 35:14) ‫ =־ )ואחר הכינו להם( ולכהנים כי הכהנים בני אהרן‬τε και τ ο ι ς ίερεϋσιν αδελφοί s αυτών υιοί ς Α α ρ ώ ν , οί γ α ρ Ιερείς..., probably for: ...‫ כי הכהנים‬.‫)ואחר הכינו להם( ולכהנים אחיהם בני אהרן‬. 4. 1:47 (36:14) ‫ ־־שרי הכהנים והעם‬και οί ηγούμενοι δε του λαού και των ιερέων, probably reflecting: ‫שרי העם והכהנים‬. The translator could easily have kept the MT's terminology had he had it in front of him. The phrase

232

I Esdras

‫ שרי הכהגים‬disappears in the L X X as well; even though, the groups there are different. 5.6:30 (Ezr 6:10)‫)די להון מהקרבין ניחוחין לאלה שמיא( ומצלין לחיי מלכא ובנוהי‬ ~ υπέρ του βασιλέως και των παίδων και προσεύχωνται περί τ η ς αυτών ζωής, probably representing: ‫על מלכא ובנוהי ומצלין לחייהון‬. 9:47.6(Neh 8:6) ‫ ־־־ ויקדו וישתחוו לה׳ אפים ארצה‬προσπεσόντες ε πι τήν γήν προσεκύνησαν τω κυρίω, possibly for: ‫ויקדו אפים ארצה וישתחוו לה׳‬. The following examples involve changes besides word-order: 7. 1:10 (2 Chr 35:10) ‫ לתתם למפלגות‬...‫ ~ והלוים על מחלקותם כמצות המלך‬καί 01 Λευίται έ χ ο ν τ ε ς τ ά ά£υμα κατά τ ά ς φυλάς, possibly for: ‫והלוים‬ ‫במצות על מחלקותם למפלגות‬. The words ‫ לתתם‬...‫ המלך‬are not represented in IEsd. 8. 1:24 (35:21) ‫ ~ וישלח אליו מלאכים‬καί διεπέμψατο βασιλεύς Αιγύπτου προς αυτόν, possibly for: ‫וישלח מלך מצרים אליו‬. 9. 1:25 (35:21) ‫ ~ ואלהים אמר לבהלני חדל לך מאלהים אשר עמי‬και νυν κύριος μ ε τ ' έμοΰ έστιν, καί κύριος μ ε τ ' έμού επισπεύδων εστίν άπόστηθι. The ΜΤ is difficult and calls for reformulation, but so is the text presumably read by our translator: ‫ועתה אלהים עמי ואלהים עמי לבהלני‬ ‫חדל לך‬. 10. 5:56 (Ezr 3:9) • ‫ק ד מ י א ל ובניו בני יהודה •נאחד לנצח על עשה ה מ ל א כ ה בבית ה א ל ה י ס בני ח נ ד ד כ נ י ה‬ ‫ואחיה• הלויס‬ καί Καδμιηλ ό

αδελφός

τον ' Ιλια&οΰ/ σί»‫ ׳‬TI*S

καί 0Ί υ ί ο ί ' Ι η σ ο ΰ Ημαδαβουν και 01 υιοί Ί ω δ ά

urns

καί αδελφοί^, irdvTes 01. Λευίται, ομοθυμαδόν

έργοδιώκται ΠΌ10ΰντί‫־‬9 eis τπ Ι ρ γ π έ ν τω οίκιυ τ ο ύ θ ε ο ΰ .

On the whole, I Esd reflects a text in which ‫בני חנדד בניהם ואחיהם‬ ‫ הלו ים‬precedes ‫כאחד‬.

233

Translation In the last two examples, two larger texts change places:

11. 5:42 (2:66-67) ‫ ג מ ל י ה ם ארבע מ א ו ת שלשים וחמשה ~ ס ו ס י ה ם שבע מאות שלשים וששה‬. .‫פרדיהם מאתים ארבעים וחמשה‬ 12. 8:81 (9:12)

.‫בנותיכם אל תתנו לבניהם ~ ובנתיהם אל תשאו לבניכם‬

In sum, if we disregard the particles, we find some 165 cases of changed word-order, two-thirds of which undoubtedly originate with the translator. This is quite a large number, considering that I Esd only has 285 verses (not counting the lists). The first and largest group of changes in word-order (some 100 cases) consists primarily of nominal phrases. These can conceivably be attributed to the translator, and show him as being uncommitted to the order in his Vorlage. This group makes it likely that the remaining changes of word-order also originated with the translator; although, it is not impossible that they occurred already in the Vorlage. For this reason our second group of examples (some 50 cases), which consists mostly of verbal phrases, falls into the grey area of doubt; even though, the changes still pertain to sentence structure. The third and small group of changes, twelve in all, do not fall into the realm of syntax. They probably occurred already in the Vorlage, though here too we cannot rule out the possibility that the change occurred as a result of the translator's indifference to the original word-order.

e. Condensation and Expansion Given the translator's tendency to devise his equivalents on the basis of logical units rather than the individual elements, it comes as no surprise to find that condensation occurs far more frequently than expansion. Indeed, our translator's tendency to condense two-word phrases into one single word is well-attested. Only rarely does he render one word with a compound idiom.

234

1 Esdras

1. Condensation Let us begin with the pronoun, which the translator probably regarded as redundant: 1. 2:4 (Ezr 1:2) ‫ ~ והוא פקד‬Kai €<‫ןןז‬1‫קף‬€1‫׳‬7. 2. 2:20 (4:16) ‫ = מהודעין אנחגה‬uTroSeiKvupcv. 3. 5:66 (4:2) ‫ ־־ אגחנו זבחים‬emQuopev. Similarly, it is not surprising that he did not translate the auxiliary verb on several occasions: 4. 6:28 (Ezr 6:8) ‫ ־־ תהוא מתיהכא‬SiSooOcu. 5. 6:29 (6:9) ‫ ~ להוא מתיהב‬avakioKta&ai. 6. 6:30 (6:10)‫ להון מהקרבין‬- Trpoa
€1

=

‫ מרפים‬...‫ויהי‬UK01pwpeva.

8. 1:31 (2 Chr 35:27) ‫ ־־ הנס כתבים‬LaToprrraL. 9. 1:40 (36:8) ‫ ־= הנם כתבים‬dfayeYpcrrrrcu. His tendency to condense the text becomes readily apparent in the following standard equivalents: 10-12.9:16, 17 (Ezr 10:16, 17), 9:40 (Neh 8:2)

1

‫ןךד ־ ביום אחד‬/

13. 9:41 (Neh 8:3) ‫ ~ מחצית היום‬pearipPpu'os · 14. 8:86 (Ezr 9:15) ‫ = כהיום הזה‬ev ‫ ןזד‬ar!pep01/. 15. 9:38 (Neh 8

:

1

)

6

= ‫ כ א י ש אחד‬p o 9 u p a ‫ ׳‬8 6 1 .

9:11;92,68,8:1. 6-19(Ezr 7:1; 9:3; 10:5, 13) ‫ הדבר הזה‬,‫־־ הדברים האלה‬ TOOTOL,

TauTa.

Translation

235

He easily condensed constructs into one term: 20-22.1:4,5, 10(2Chr 35:4, 5, 12) ‫ « בית אבות‬π α τ ρ ι ό , π α τ ρ ι κ ή , πατέρες. 23. 1:7 (35:7) ‫ ־־ בני עזים‬έριφοι. 24. 7:8 (Ezr 6:17) ‫ ~ צפירי עזים‬χίμαροι. 25. 2:9 (1:7)‫ ~ בבית אלהיו‬είδωλεϊον. 26. 8:50 (8:21) ‫ ־־ דרך ישרה‬εύοδία. 27. 8:74 (9:7) ‫ ־־ ובבשת פנים‬αισχύνη. 28. 9:13 (10:14) ‫ ־־חרון אף‬όργή. One particularly large group consists of a verb and its complement condensed into one Greek verb: 29-39. ‫ =־ שים טעם‬προστάσσειν, έπιτάσσειν, συντάσσεις. 40. 2:2 (Ezr 1:1) ‫ ־־ ויעבר קול‬και έκήρυξεν. 41. 2:8 (1:6) ‫־= חזקו בידיהם‬έί30ήθησαν. 42. 2:21 (4:17) ‫ * פ ת ג מ א שלח‬άντέγραψεν. 43. 6:12 (5:11) ‫ ־־ פתגמא התיבונא‬άπεκρίθησαν ήμΐν. 44. 6:6 (5:5) ‫ = יתיבון נשתונא‬προσφωνηθήναι. 45. 6:31 (6:11) ‫ ־־ וזקיף יתמחא‬κρεμασθήναι. 46. 8:26 (7:28) ‫־= ה ט ה ח ס ד‬έτίμησεv. 47. 9:54 (Neh 8:12) ‫ ־־ ולעשות שמחה‬εύφρανθήναι. 48. 1:49 ( 2 Chr 36:16) ‫ ־ ע ל ו ת ח מ ת הי‬του θυμωθέντα αυτόν. Sometimes the condensed elements are not adjacent: 49. 1:30 (35:25) ‫ בקינותיהם‬...‫ =־ יאמרו‬έθρήνησεν. 50. 6:6 (5:5) ‫ יהך‬...‫ ~ טעמא‬τού ύποσημανθήναι. 51. 6:22 (6:2) ‫ דברונה‬. . . ‫ כ ת י ב‬- ύ π ε μ ν η μ ά τ ι σ τ ο .

236

1 Esdras Despite their condensed form, the equivalents are usually accurate

enough to identify without problem. Sometimes, however, an element becomes so blurred that we wonder i f it even formed part of the Vorlage. This is especially true when a given element seems redundant, or when the translator apparently misconstrued it and therefore chose to represent it only indirectly: 52. 2:25 (4:23) ‫ ־־ פרשגן־ נשתונא‬γραφέντων. 53. 8:56 (8:27) ‫ ־־ וכפרי זהב‬και χρυσώματα. The translator probably did not know the meaning of either ‫ נשונון‬or ‫ ;כפרי‬thus, condensing them was an excellent way out of the difficulty. The vagueness of his translation becomes especially apparent when different words are rendered by the same condensed equivalent: 54. 2:14 (1:11) ‫ ־־עם העלות הגולה‬άμα rots έκ τ η ς αιχμαλωσίας. 55. 7:13 (6:21) ‫ ־ ־ ה ש ב י ם מהגולה‬0 1 έκ τ η ς αιχμαλωσίας. Not only do two different expressions turn into one, but, they are also indistinguishable from a third, ‫בני הגולה‬, which is rendered in the same way. 56. 2:18 (1:14) ‫ ־־ שלחנא והודענא‬προσφωνήσαι. 57. 5:62 (3:13) ‫ ־־תרועה גדולה‬μεγαλωστί. The Vorlage might have read ‫קול גדול‬, as attested by the L X X and the Peshitta. 58. 1:14 (2 Chr 35:15) ‫ ־־ חוזה המלך‬οί παρά τ ο υ βασιλέως. 59-63.9:45-54 (Neh 8:5-12) ‫־־ כל העם‬πάντες. 64. 8:24 (Ezr 7:26) ‫ ־־)דתא די אלהך( ודתא די מלכא‬και τον βασιλικόν. The following is typical of 1 Esd: 65. 1:7 (2 Chr 35:7, 8) ‫ ושריו‬.‫ ~ מרכוש המלך‬έκ των βασιλικών. 66. 1:51 (2 Chr 36:18) ‫ ־־ואצרות המלך ושריו‬και τ ά ς βασιλικός άποθήκας.

Translation

237

Repeated verbs are sometimes rendered by only one verb: 67. 8:10 (7:13) ‫( למהך לירושלם עמך יהך‬.,.‫ ־= )כל מתנדב‬συμπορεύεσθαϊ σοι εis Ιερουσαλήμ. 68. 8:18 (7:20) ‫ =־ )די יפל לך( למנתו תנתן‬δώσεις. In these latter examples, the Aramaic requires two verbs while the Greek can make do with only one. The same is true for the condensation of the repeated ‫ מלך‬in the introductory formulae: 69. 1:33 (2 Chr 36:2) ‫ מלך‬...‫ ־־ במלכו‬και έβασίλευσεν. 70. 1:44 (36:11) ‫ מלך‬...‫ ־במלכו‬βασιλεύει δέ. The following condensation is particularly striking: 71. 2:23 (Ezr 4:20) ‫ ~ מדה בלו והלך מתיהב להון‬φορολογουντες. These examples amply illustrate our translator's tendency to streamline his text. Only rarely can we suggest a different, more condensed reading in the Vorlage. His technique should not be seen as an indicator of negligence or disrespect for the Vorlage; but, rather a desire to render his work in a more palatable and idiomatic language,

2. Expansion

1. 1:38 (2 Chr 36:6) ‫ ־־ בנחשתים‬έν χαλκείω δεσμώ; also in the L X X . 2. 1:32, 35,44 (36:1, 4, 10) ‫ ־־־ להמליך‬ανέδειξαν βασιλέα. 3. 1:23 (35:20) ‫ ־־ להלחם‬πόλε μον έγείραι, cf. also v. 27 (35:20). 4. 1:29 (35:24) ‫ ־־ וימת‬μετήλλαξεν τον βίον αύτοΰ. 5. 6:19 (Ezr 5:16) ‫= ולא שלם‬ούκ έλαβεν συντέλειαν. On some occasions nominal clauses are expanded with the auxiliary είναι. Other complementary elements are sometimes, though only rarely

238

Translation

added: e.g., αυτός is added in 8:55 (Ezr 8:25), and ίδιος in 5:8 (2:1). The personal pronoun is added with the creation of the acc.c.inf. in 5:40, 53 (2:63; 3:7), and the sentence becomes better organized by preceding the sentences with αυτοί and οΰτοι in 1:49, 50 (2 Chr 36:16, 17). It is difficult to know whether it was the translator who reorganized the sentence by providing the conjunctive ομοίως δ<έ in 6:29 (6:9) and 8:20 (7:22), or by specifying the subject: και 01,'Ιουδαίοι in 2:19 (4:15) and και οί άνθρωποι in 2:23 (4:20). Whether more significant expansions also come from the hand of the translator, we have no way of knowing;

299

though, it seems

quite unhkely. We treated these cases as possible expansions in I Esd's Vorlage. There are, however, dozens of double translations which served our translator as an interpretive device and as such contribute to the expansive quality of the translation.

II. Double Translations

We approach here the complicated subject of 'double translations', namely, cases in which one unit in the Vorlage is paralleled by two alternative 00

units in the translation.' Two preliminary criteria are in order.

301

The

self-evident rule would be that 'double translation' is a phenomenon within the target language. Therefore, it must first be determined whether a disparity between a text and its translation actually originates in the Greek or whether it is a rendering of an expanded Vorlage and, more specifically, of a 'double reading'. 3

‫״‬

302

Secondly, a distinction should be made between 'double

E.g., the addition of the adjective where Ezra's vestment is concerned, 8:68, 70 (Ezr 9:3, 5 ) ‫ ־ ־ בגדי ו מ ע י ל י‬τ ά ιμάτια και τήι‫ ׳‬k p a v «σθήτα.

*" 'Double translations* is a major problem in other books of the L X X as well; e.g.. in the Book of Samuel, for which see Driver (1913), pp. lv-lvii; Pisano (1984); also in the Book of Judges, cf. Talshir (1986), pp. 47-56. 551

For further definitions and examples from the L X X see Talshir (1986).

302

See Talmon (1960), pp. 144-184; (1961), pp. 335-383.

Translation

239

translations' and other expanded renderings that serve the translator in his exegetieal efforts to match his Vorlage. The term specifies that alternate renderings are meant, that is, each of the two renderings now joined in a 'double translation' could have been independent equivalents of the item in question.

303

Bearing these reservations in mind, we may submit that a

minimum of thirty cases of double translations are to be found in I Esd.

304

The major problem in the evaluation of the phenomenon lies in the difficulty to distinguish between double translations which originated in compilatory activity in the process of transmission, and those which are an exegetieal means used by one and the same translator as part of his translation technique.

305

However, there should be a difference between the components of the 'double translation' in order to justify the use of the term. Frankel (1841), pp. 171-172, speaks of 'doppelte Uebersetzung' under the heading of 'Hermeneutik und Exegese', referring to the practice of rendering the same word twice in order to solve a syntactical problem, similar to the hermeneutic rule ‫ מ ק ר א נדרש לפניו ולאחריו‬. While formally one word is represented twice, the two equivalents are not meant as semantic alternatives and indeed do not differ from each other apart from their syntactic role in the context; cf. the double representation of ‫ עבדיהם ו א מ ה ת י ה ס‬in I Esd 5:41 (Ezr 2:64): see p. 171. Klein (1966), pp. 227-247, counts 72 cases of "double translations and the use of hendiadys". Even if we sift out the cases of hendiadys there still remain many cases that are not acceptable as real double translations. Reluctant as he is to recognize the possibility of a wider text in the Vorlage, Klein expands the range of double translations; thus, the importance of the omissions increases, and his basic assumption about the 'shorter text' represented in I Esd is justified. Conflation of extant renderings is characteristic of revisions such as Lucian's. The problem is raised regarding the Targumim. Spcrber (1973), vol. I V - B , p. 3, concludes on the basis of doublets containing a literal and a non-literal rendering that there were two schools of translators: "How else shall we account for the existence of such doublets but by assuming that in these passages the translations originating in each one of the two schools were fused together"; cf. his examples on p. 191. Klein (1982). pp. 145-151, argues against him, claiming that most of the material is from one and the same translator.

240

1 Esdras

Establishing criteria for this kind of evaluation is not easy. There are times when the components of a double translation have the same meaning and are placed one beside the other, without any link between them, or linked by a simple conjunction, and, in addition, assume the same syntactical position in the sentence. In such cases, the two components are mutually exclusive in respect of content and form, and are best interpreted as a technical fusion of translation traditions, and not as part of the translator's interpretive process. But together with this, even when the source lies in the different translation traditions, the very fact of fusing them is an interpretive process, and could have been used in the same manner that the translator employed the 'double translation' as an interpretive means. The large number of double translations in I Esd makes it reasonable to suppose that at least some of them are the result of the history of the translation. Even though I Esd also has a few examples of mechanical fusion of two mutually exclusive equivalents, the overall impression, however, is that we are talking about a deliberate and creative interpretive process. The first group of examples w i l l prove beyond all doubt that our translator indeed employed double translations as part of his translation technique. In these cases, the translator used two verbs expressing different aspects of the Vorlage in order to render one verb, and connected them in a hypotactical construction; he clearly perceived the combined verbs as one equivalent, not as two alternatives.

306

These verbs in all likelihood

originated with the translator himself and are not a result of having fused two existing translation traditions.

In this respect they may not fall under a strict definition of 'double translations'. Klein (1966) named this kind of translation 'hendiadys', a term which I believe should be restricted to well-established pairs of words.

241

Translation

(1) 1:39 (2 Chr 36:7) ‫ ~ הביא‬λαβών... και

άπενέγκας.

(2) 1:51 (36:18) ‫ ~ הביא‬άναλαβόντες άπήνεγκαν.*" (3) 5:69 (Ezr 4:4)!‫ ומבלהים‬:‫ ~ ומבהלים )כת‬και πολιορκοϋντες εΐργον. (4) 6:14 (5:12)‫ = הרגזו‬παραπικράντες ήμαρτον. (5) 6:15 (5:21) ‫ ~ סתרה‬καθελόντες ένεπύρισαν. The syntactical structure reveals that we are dealing with the translator's activity; however, the following examples are not essentially different even though the two verbs are joined simply by a connecting particle. (6) 2:14 (1:11)‫ =־ העלה‬δι.εκομί.σθη... άνηνέχθη δέ. (7) 6:8 (5:8)‫ =־ אזלנא‬παράγε νόμε vol... και έλθόντες. (8) 5:57 (3:10)‫ = לחלל‬ΰμνοΰντες... και εύλογουντες.

308

(9) 5:59 (3:11)‫ « הריעו‬έ σ ά λ π ι σ α ν και έβόησαν. The last example clearly demonstrates the translator's thought process: in his expanded rendering, or double translation, he expresses two shades m

of meaning comprised in the single item of his Vorlage.

The same goes

for his double representation of the following nouns and adjectives: (10) 9:46 (Neh 8:6) ‫ ־־ )אלהי( צבאות‬σαβαώθ παντοκράτορι. (11) 9:8 (Ezr 10:11)‫ ~ תודה‬όμολογίαν δόξαν. ™ Cf. the examples adduced by Frankel (1841), p. 166: Exod 3:8 ‫־־ ולהעלותו‬6ξαγαγε"ίν... και ε ί σ α γ α γ ε » • ; 2 Kgs 2:20 ‫־־ ויקח‬και ελαβοι» και ή ν ε γ κ α ν . ν

* One cannot rule out the possibility that he actually had an expanded Vorlage ‫להלל‬ ‫ ;ולהודות‬cf. 5:58 (3:11)

m

61 ‫ ' ־ ־ בהלל ובהודת‬ύμνων ό μ ο λ ο γ ο 0 ν τ 6 5 -

111 fact, this practice of attributing two meanings to one word is not confined to double translations. He achieves the same effect by rendering an unusual word such as ‫ אשתדור‬once by πολιορκία and once by π ό λ ε μ ο ς in two close verses, 2:19, 23 (Ezr 4:15, 19): see Leiter (1985), pp. 79-95. Onkelos features a similar device; cf. Komlosh (1973), pp. 242-243.

242

I Esdras

(12) 6:26 (6:6)‫־= אפרסכיא‬άποτεταγμένοις... ήγεμόσιν. (13) 2:23 (4:20)‫ ־־ תקיפין‬ισχυροί και σκληροί."

0

(14) 8:10 (7:13)‫ ~ כל מתנדב‬τούς βουλομένους... αίρετί£οντας (15) 6:8 (5:8)‫ ~ גלל‬ξυστών πολυτελών. Later in the chapter, 6:24 (6:4), ξυστών alone matches ‫גלל‬. (16)8:68 (9:3) ‫ ־־ משומש‬σύννους και περίλυπος. The latter is a telling example of the translator's search for the right shade of meaning.

311

Notably, in the following verse, περίλυπος alone is

left over. The last two examples involve an additional aspect of the discussion; since alongside the doublet, in the near context, only one of the components of the doublet is used. In view of the following examples, it becomes clear that we are not dealing with incidental doublets. (17)8:11 (Ezr7:14): ‫=־ יעטהי‬φίλοις συμβουλευταΐς. Φίλοι is a common term in the administration of the Hellenistic period,

M

while the stem συμβουλ- is a literal rendering. Interestingly

enough, in 8:13 (7:15), ‫ יעטוהי‬is rendered by οί φίλοι; whereas, ‫ ויועציו‬in 3

8:26 (7:28) is rendered by και τών συμβουλευόντων, " and in 8:55 (8:25) by οί σύμβουλοι αύτοϋ. It seems clear that the doublet is a conflation of Both Greek words are established equivalents of ‫תקיף‬. However, it may also reflect a conjectured Aramaic pair, ‫תקיפין וחסינין‬, suggested by the pair ‫ ח ט ן‬/ ‫ ת ק ף‬in the Book of Daniel, e.g., 2:37, 4:27. 1

"' It is interesting that the I I Esd "" also has a doublet here, though one that is completely different: ήρεμων και θαυμάτων, introducing the verb's connotation of desolation as well as of astonishment. ‫־‬

" See Talshir (1984*), p. 142. 513

In this verse the φίλοι appear as well, but they seem to stand for ‫שרים‬, thus:‫ויועציו‬ ‫ = ולכל שרי ה מ ל ך הגברים‬καί των σ υ μ β ο υ λ ε υ ό ν τ ω ν κα'ι π ά ν τ ω ν των φίλων

και

μ ε γ ι σ τ ά ι τ ω ν αύτοΰ. Indeed, in Esther φίλοι is, inter alia, the equivalent of ‫שרים‬: see 3:1; 6:9, also 1:3; 2:18.

243

Translation

two possible renderings which are actually used separately in the same chapter. The doublet may be the result of the translator's indecisiveness;

3H

although, one cannot rule out the possibility that he may have used an existing translation, or that he was aware of an existing traditional equivalent. It is not likely that we are dealing here with the work of a redactor who set out to replace one term with another, e.g., who endeavored to replace the technical term with a literal equivalent: we would have to say then that he twice removed φίλοι altogether, overlooked it in one case, and provided it with an alternative in another. (18) 2:21 (Ezr 4:17) ‫ ~ בעל ט ע ם‬τω γράφοντι τ ά π ρ ο σ π ί π τ ο ν τ α και Βεελτεέμω. The first equivalent is an explanation filling the title with a given content. Rehum is believed to be in charge of writing down the things that 315

came to pass. The second is the title transliterated. This is proven beyond any doubt by the equivalents of ‫ בעל טעם‬in its previous occurrences in the chapter. In 2:15 (4:8), ‫ בעל טעם‬is paralleled by Βεελτέεμος; while in 2:16 (4:9), it is rendered by ό τ ά προσπίπτοντα. This variety of equivalents in three verses so close to one another makes it quite difficult to suppose that someone manipulated an original translation, being eager to insert one equivalent or the other. It rather reflects the efforts invested by the translator in the transmission of an unfamiliar term. Admittedly, the conjunction καί is quite strange. Applying Lagarde's 'axiome' to double translations, one may argue that the servile equivalents, or those in agreement with the M T , are later 3 1 4

His indecisivencss expresses itself as well in the three different uses of the stem συμβουλ-: he presents two different nouns - σ υ μ β ο υ λ ε υ τ ή j (only here in the L X X ) and σ ύ μ β ο υ λ ο ι , and a parUeipium - συμβουλεύων. In I I Esd it is always σύμβουλοι.

3 , 5

The verb προσπίτττειν is used with similar shades of meaning in the papyri of die second and third centuries B . C . E . , cf. further its use in 8:8 (Ezr 7:11) to designate the arrival of an official letter. This reminds us of Rehum's position in our text as the writer of such a letter.

244

I Esdras

insertions.

516

To be sure, the free equivalents are those characteristic of

I Esd and there is hardly any evidence to support a later revision of I Esd towards the MT-form. The almost Midrash-like use of double translation is well-attested in the following examples, in which neither form nor content reveals at first sight the procedure that is responsible for the state of the text. The disguise is provided by the ingenuity of the translator who had two solutions for the same word and chose to weave them together. (19) 6:8 (Ezr 5:8)?‫ = !השכחנא לשבי יהודיא‬κατελάβομεν τ ή ς αιχμαλωσίας τους πρεσβυτέρους των Ιουδαίων. This is a conjecture, with no Vorlage to account for it. We assume that the addition includes a double translation which resulted from two different vocalizations of the word ‫שבי‬, rendered by both αιχμαλωσία and πρεσβύτεροι. Indeed, in 6:27 (Ezr 6:8), the translator must have read ‫שבי‬ as ‫שבי‬, rendering it by αιχμαλωσία; whereas, in 6:26, 7:2 (6:7, 14), he read ‫=( שבי‬MT) and rendered it by πρεσβύτεροι. The two renderings are combined in 6:8. The words are of different meaning ('captivity', 'elders') and of different syntactical function. Moreover, they are related to each other: the text speaks of 'the elders of the Jews of the captivity'. The same double translation occurs in the following example: (20) 6:5 (5:5)‫ ־־ועין אלההם הות על שבי יהח־יא‬και έσχοσαν χάριν επισκοπής γενομένης παρά τον Κυρίου έπί τήν αίχμαλωσίαν οί πρεσβύτεροι των Ιουδαίων. In this complicated case, the translation presumably holds two interconnected double translations for two phrases joined into a compound construction, the components of which are no longer separable: ‫ הות‬... ‫ועין‬ was rendered by both και έσχοσαν χάριν (possibly reflecting ‫ וחן‬for ‫)ועין‬ and by the gen. abs. επισκοπής γενομένης, and ‫ ש ב י‬- b y both αιχμαλωσία Lagarde(1863), p. .3.

Translation

245

and πρεσβύτεροι. Moreover, οί πρεσβύτεροι functions as the subject of και έσχοσαν χάριν; whereas, επί τ η ν αίχμαλωσίαν complements the gen. abs. επισκοπής γενομένης. This well-planned doublet is credited to the translator who created the text. Yet, one must keep in mind that it may not have been entirely his own creation. He could well have borrowed some of the equivalents from another work at his disposal. In the following examples, the translator renders the genitival attribute in two ways, 1) literally, by a noun in the genitive, and 2) by an adjective. (22) 5:39 (Ezr 2:62) ‫ = כתבם המתיחשים‬τ η ς γ ε ν ι κ ή ς γ ρ α φ ή ς έν τω καταλοχισμφ. (23) 6:20 (5:17) ‫ ~ בבית גנזיא די מלכא‬έν τοις βασιλικοΐς βιβλιοφυλακίοις τού κυρίου βασιλέως. Both the adjective βασιλικός and the expanded title κύριος βασιλεύς are common terms used by this translator when designating something as royal. (24) 6:25 (6:5) ‫ ~ מאני בית אלהא‬τά ιερά σκεύη τού οίκου Κυρίου. (25) 8:55 (8:25) ‫ ־= ו א ת הכלים תרומת בית אלהינו‬και τ ά ιερά σκεύη τού ο'ίκου Κυρίου ημών. The same pattern is used for the phrase ‫ כלי בית ה׳‬or ‫מאני בית אלהא‬. Usually (7 times), it is rendered in I Esd by τά ιερά σκεύη τού Κυρίου. It seems probable that τά... σκεύη represents ‫ כלי‬or ‫ ;מאני‬τούΚυρίου stands for ‫ ה׳‬or ‫אלהא‬, and the adjective ιερά fills the place of ‫ ;בית‬this is supported by the standard equivalent in I Esd (‫ = בית )הי‬τό ιερόν. In two cases, we find this rendering expanded by a double representation of ‫בית‬: τά ιερά σκεύη τού ο'ίκου Κυρίου. Again, it is not reasonable to assume that out of a total of nine cases somebody interfered in two of them in order to do justice to the word ‫בית‬.

246

I Esdras

(26-27) 8:66, 67 (9:1, 2) ‫ ~ עמי הארצות‬τ ά αλλογενή έθνη τ η ς γ η ς . In 8:89; 9:9 (10:2, 11), he renders the phrase literally, by τά έθνη τής γή5, as in those verses where the foreign wives are explicitly mentioned and αλλογενείς is used for ‫גבריות‬. Cf. also 8:80 (9:11) ‫~ עמי הארצות‬ αλλογενών τ ή ς γ η ς . In several cases, the unit represented twice is not a single word but a phrase or even an entire sentence. (28) 5:49 (3:3) ‫ כי באימה עליהם‬- και έπισυνήχθησαν αύτοΐς... ότι έν έχθρα ήσαν αύτοίς και κατίσχυσαν αυτούς. (29) 6:9 (5:8) ‫ ~ ועבידתא ד ן אספרגא מתעבדא ומצלח בידהם‬και τ ά έργα εκείνα έπί σπουδής γιγνόμενα και εΰοδούμενον τ ό έργον έν τ α ϊ ς χερσίν αυτών και έν πάση δόξη και επιμέλεια συντελούμενα. (30) 6:31 (6:11) ‫ ־= די יהשנא פתגמא דנה‬παραβώσιν τι τών προειρημένων και τών προσγεγραμμένων ή και άκυρώσωαιν. (31) 8:8 (7:11)‫ ־־ וזה פרשגן הנשתון אשר נתן‬προσπεσόντος δέ. τού γραφέντυς προστάγματος... ού έστιν άντίγραφον τό ύποκείμενον. It is obvious that 'double translation' is a device manipulated by our translator to the point where the two components are deliberately interconnected and are no longer separable.

517

In these cases, it is difficult

to count the double translations. 11' we count, unwisely, the words paralleled by a doublet, and not the sentences, we come closer to forty cases of double translation, rather than the thirty stated earlier. '" See Weiss (1979). pp. 191-197. He defines this phenomenon as following: There are cases in which the sentence is meaningful only when the iwo components of the double translation are joined together. They are neither the result of the work of two different translators nor later additions; they were written by one and the same translator, and deliberately so. E.g., Job 36:10 ‫די יתונון מן עובדיהון =־ בי ישונו מאון‬ ‫' און( בישיא דדמיין ל ל מ א‬sinful', ‫' אין‬nothingness'); Isa 19:18 ‫ק ר ת א ד נ י ת ~ עיר ה ה ר ס‬

‫' חרס( שמש דעתיד למיחרג‬sun', ‫' הרס‬destruction').

Translation

247

There are a few other cases which may come under the definition of double translation, but they are too problematic to be introduced as definitive cases of this phenomenon. In conclusion, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that behind the relatively large number of double translations in I Esd looms an editorial fusing of an existing translation, or of an accepted translation tradition, with a new translation by the present translator or revisor, as obviously occurred in the case of Lucian. But, primarily speaking, this is indeed a means of expression used by our translator, whose philosophy of translation made him perceive double translations as a legitimate means in translating a text.

III. The Linguistic Milieu of 1 Esd

Our examination of the translation technique employed in I Esd shows that we are dealing with a creative translator who sought to adapt the language of his Vorlage to the structure of the target-language, and who endeavored to present the 'Greek' reader with a pleasant and lucid reading experience. Let us now proceed one step beyond the questions of translation technique and attempt to evaluate his distinctive vocabulary in comparison with the L X X .

, I S

The examination of a group of expressions peculiar to a certain work - in this case a translation - which in turn belongs to a larger corpus, clearly requires great caution. Firstly, a literary work is not characterized only by its peculiarities. Secondly, the group of words peculiar to a given translation may well be rooted in the nature of the original work being 8

" The data encompasses both the undoubtedly translated parts of I Esd and the Story of the Three Youths, which in our view is part and parcel of the rest of the translation. It should be noted that the story in no way alters the overall picture of the book as a whole, and that in this respect at least, there is no justification for viewing it separately.

248

I Esdras

translated rather than the individuality of a specific translator. Finally, the peculiarity may simply be the result of coincidence; a word is not necessarily characteristic of a book when it appears there but nowhere else, nor does it cease to be characteristic when one finds it in other books. Due to these and similar qualifications, it would seem unwise to describe the vocabulary in terms of precise distribution, reduced to mere numbers and percentages. Below we shall seek only to indicate the orientation of the translator in selecting the equivalents that characterize his work. This orientation is best studied through groups of words rather than individual ones because this narrows the danger of alighting on trends that are more apparent than real. I Esd is an integral part of the LXX and closely akin to such books as LXX-Esther and LXX-Daniel. Similar to these two books, if only because of the large additions vis-a-vis the MT, I Esd functions as a bridge between the canonical books and the Apocrypha, whether translations or original compositions in Greek. The midway position of our translator's language will emerge time and again in the discussion below. There is no doubt, however, that the language of I Esd is rooted in that of the L X X and is widely shared with this corpus. The affinity between I Esd and the L X X is conspicuous in the translator's use of terms which entered the Greek language by means of the L X X , such as θυσιαστήριοι- 'altar' (5 times in I Esd, including once in the epilogue to the Story of the Three Youths, 4:52), ολοκαύτωμα, όλοκαύτωσις 'burnt offering' (3 times), ά£υμα 'unleavened bread' (3 times), and κιβωτός 'ark of the Lord' (2 t i m e s ) .

m

Another type of translation, which may be loosely defined as 'contextal translation', points even more strongly in the same direction. In Ezr, for example, the Temple vessels restored by Cyrus king of Persia are called Cf. Τον (1978), p. 123.

249

Translation ‫אגרטלים‬, ‫מחלפים‬,

and ‫( כפורים‬Ezr 1:9-10). The words are either hapax

legomena (‫ מחלף‬,‫)אגרטל‬, or rare (‫כפור‬, again in Ezr 8:27 and 1 Chr 28:17). In I Esd, these terms are rendered respectively by σπονδεΐα ( L X X ‫קשות ־־‬, 3 times); θυίσκαι (in the L X X usually = ‫)כף‬, and φιάλαι (usually ~ ‫;)מזרק‬ all are terms which also occur in the lists of Temple vessels in the LXX. I Esd thus borrowed terms from the context of Temple vessels in the L X X in order to render related terms with which he was apparently unfamiliar. Evidence of this can be seen in his different treatment of ‫ כפורים‬in its subsequent reoccurrence in 8:56 (Ezr 8:27). There he rendered ‫כפרי זהב‬ with an inexact χρυσώματα, since, on the one hand, he did not know the actual meaning of ‫ כפור‬and, on the other, he could not here employ the technical terms used in the L X X for the Temple vessels, seeing that the context now concerned the contributions of the king, his ministers and all Israel.

321

As a final example of I Esd's close relationship with the rest of the L X X , let us mention the translation of ‫ אורים ותמים‬in 5:40 (2:63) ‫עד עמד‬ ‫' ~ כהן לאורים ולתמים‬έΐύς άναστή άρχιερεϋς ένδεδυμενος τ η ν δηλωσιν και την άλήθααν. This translation is obviously based on the L X X .

322

If

we did not know the original phrase or its standard L X X equivalent, we would surely have difficulty in making sense of the Greek here. While such translational oddities are not uncommon in the L X X , they are seldom found in I Esd.

a. Sancta Admittedly, the above-quoted examples all relate to the area of the cult, where consistency and even stereotyping might be expected in m

Whether or not ‫ מחלפים‬is actually a type 01" vessel, the translator understood it as such.

321

Cf. in the Story of the Three Youths, 3:6 και ίν χρυσώμασιν riiveiv.

332

Exod 28:26 (30); Lev 8:8; Num 27:21: Deut 33:8 (in changed order); 1 Sam 28:6.

250

I Esdras

translation. However, it is precisely in matters pertaining to the cult that we discover the translator's independence. He does not hesitate to break away from the conventions used in the LXX. He delights in introducing terminology drawn from his own environment, and even in airing his own views in matters apparently close to his heart. 1. The translator's treatment of the center of the cult, viz. the Temple, deserves particular attention. In the Books of Chr-Ezr-Neh, the Temple is known primarily as ‫ בית אלהא‬,‫ בית אלהים‬,‫' בית הי‬the House of the Lord'. In the L X X , this term is rendered literally by ό οίκος τ ο υ κυρίου. I Esd too makes use of this equivalent (17 times)/" but equally employs another 4

one: το ιερόν, either for ‫ בית‬alone (12 times)," or for the entire term (6 5

times)." It can hardly be assumed that in all these instances the translator had a text in which ‫ בית‬or ‫ בית ה׳‬had been replaced by ‫מקדש‬. Derivations of ‫ קדש‬would normally be translated in I Esd by derivations of αγι-,"* as in the L X X .

127

This becomes even clearer when considering his way of

rendering another common term: ‫אלהים‬/‫ ~ כלי בית הי‬τ ά ιερά σκεύη τ ο ΰ κυρίου (7 times). Here, too, we are certainly not dealing with variants, e.g., similar to 1 Chr 22:19 ‫וכלי קדש האלהים‬. The latter, again, would rather involve the use of ά γ ι ο ς ; cf. 8:57 (8:28) ‫ ־־ והכלים קדש‬και τ ά σκεύη άγια. It should thus be stated: just as τ ο ιερόν frequently represents ‫ בית‬in the term ‫בית ה׳‬, so does the adjective ιερός repeatedly stand for ‫בית‬ in the phrase ‫כלי בית ה׳‬. A similar translation is found in LXX-Dan 1:2 ‫ ־־ ומקצת כלי בית האלהים‬και μέρος τι των ιερών σκευών τού κυρίου. m

Strangely enough, !‫ ביו‬without the attribute ‫ ה׳‬or ‫ א ל ה י ם‬, hut unquestionably indicating the 'House of the Lord', is always rendered simply by OIKOS

,

‫ "י־‬Cf. the Aramaic translation of ‫ בית מק דש א דה׳ ־־ בית ה׳‬.

ra

See also 5:44 (Ezr 2:69), and 8:18 (7:20) MS A.

m

Thus, e.g., 1:3 (twice), 1:5, 1:50(2Chr 35:3, 5; 36:17). This last verse is particularly instructive: ‫ ־־ בית מ ק ד ש ס‬τοΰ ά γ ι ο υ αυτών ίεροϋ, i.e., ‫ ־־ בית‬τ ο ι ε ρ ό ν , ‫־־ מקדש‬

5 3 7

ayios. See Hanhart (1974*). p. 62.

251

Translation

In sum, the translator of I Esd introduces into his work the term TO ιερόν, which was probably part of his linguistic milieu. This term is rare in the canonical books, appearing some six times altogether, but is quite common in 1-4 Mace. In fact, the L X X to the canonical books refrains from employing ιερός completely. Matters pertaining to sanctity, to God, and his Temple above all, are described by άγιος

m

I Esd, in contrast,

abounds in ίερο-, as we shall see below. In concluding this point, let us take note of the translator's sensitivity to this matter which finds expression in his translation of ‫בית אלהים‬, when it refers to the gods of the Babylonian king: ‫ ~ בבית אלהיו‬ev τω εαυτοί! είδωλείω, 2:9 (Ezr 1:7). Είδωλεΐον, based on ειδωλον - the preferred 12

rendering in the L X X for such words as ,‫ אליל‬,‫ גלולים‬,‫ פסל‬, ‫ * ש ק ו ץ‬appears in the L X X of the canonical books only in Dan 1:2 ‫ואת הכלים הביא בית‬ ‫ = אוצר אלהיו‬και άπηρείσατο αυτά ev τω είδωλείω αυτοί). Once again, we are witness to a striking affinity between LXX-Dan and 1 Esd;"" see also Bel 10 and 1 Mace 1:47, 83. 2. Let us now move on to matters related to the Temple (in the spirit 1

of I Esd: τά κατά τον ιερόν)." First of all, we mention ό άρχιερεύς 'the high priest'. The term appears only four times in the L X X of the canonical ‫־״‬

books, randomly distributed and not attested in all MSS. It is frequently used in 1-4 Mace alongside some of its derivatives (άρχιεράσθαι, m

See Seeligraann (1948), p. 102: " . . . ά γ ι ο ; is also the exalted God... in the midst of His Heavenly throng, while, on earth, the circle of His worshippers, humbly and in fear, seeks to approach His sanctuary. It is not, indeed, mere accident that the Temple is always called ά γ ι υ ν . never ιερόν".

w

Seeligmann (1948), p. 99.

m

See Torrey (1910). p. 84.

5,1

See his paraphrase, precipitated by a misunderstanding of ‫ מ ל ח ה י כ ל א מ ל ח נ א‬in 2:18 (Ezr 4:14) ε ν ε ρ γ ε ί τ α ι τ ά κατά τ ο ν ιερόν "as the things pertaining to the temple are now underway". 2

" See L e v 4:3 for ‫הכהן המשיח‬, Josh 22:13 regarding Eleazar son of Aaron, 1 Kgs 1:25 referring 10 Eviatar: also 1 Chr 15:14 (in the plural).

252

I Esdras

άρχιερατεύειν, and άρχιερωσύνη). In I Esd, it occurs four times. It is introduced for ‫ כהן‬in 5:40 (Ezr 2:63), since the priest in question is a priest with Urim and Thummim (cf. Exod 28). Otherwise, άρχιερεύς is reserved for Ezra.'" Accordingly, Ezra's garments also receive special attention. Thus, for ‫ בגדי ומעילי‬I Esd reads τά ιμάτια και την ίεράν έσθήτα in 8:68,70 (3:3,5).

334

In the same connection, the adjective Ιερατικός deserves

special notice. It appears in 5:44 (2:69)‫ ־־וכתנות כהניס‬και στολάς ιερατικός, and again in exactly the same expression in the epilogue to the Story of the Three Youths in 4.54; similarly in 2 Mace 3:15. It does not appear elsewhere in the L X X . We further note the collective noun Ίερ0)συι‫׳‬ή 5:38 (2:62 ‫כהנה ־־־‬ 'priesthood'), which appears besides our text only once in LXX-Chr, once in Sirach and more frequently in 1 Mace (4 times) and 4 Mace (twice). The stem 'ιερ- is also used for words other than derivatives of ‫כהן‬: άνιεροϋν 9:4 (10:8 ‫)יחרס ־־‬, elsewhere only in 3 Mace 3:20; and ίερατεύειν, a verb common in the L X X for ‫כהן‬, which is aptly used in I Esd for ‫משרתים )לבית‬ ( 8 : 1 7 )

8:45

3. Against this background of diversity in using the stem ίερ-, it is not surprising to find groups of Temple officials bearing titles that incorporate this element. First of all, mention should be made of a compound unique to I Esd, viz. the ίεροστάται, 7:2 (Ezr 6:13-14; the Hebrew equivalent 355

9:39, 40, 49 (Neh 8:1, 2, 9), even though he is not consistent - in three other cases Ezra is simply ό Upsus, 8:8; 9:16, 42 (Ezr 7:11; 10:16; Neh 8:4). It is interesting to note that ‫ אהרן הכהן הראש‬is rendered Α α ρ ώ ν τ ο υ πρώτου Ί6ρ6ω; in 8:2 ( E z r 7:5). Note that the title α ρ χ ι ε ρ ε ί ς is held by certain strategoi in the Seleucid administration; cf. Bagnall(1976), pp. 15,48.

334

The reference to the priestly garb found in 5:57 (Ezr 3:10) ‫־״ ויעמידו ה כ ה נ י ם מ ל ג ש י ם‬ και έ σ τ η σ α ν οί ι ε ρ ε ί ς ε σ τ ο λ ι σ μ ε ν ο ι , is further repealed in I E s d without a corresponding ‫ מלבשים‬in the M T ; see 1:2 (2 Chr 35:2); 7:9 (Ezr 6:18). This, again, is due to the emphasis on the official priesdy attire in Exod 28 and 39. These changes, to be sure, may well have occurred in the Varlage.

253

Translation

is not clear), which might be translated 'those appointed over the Temple'. Of interest is the definition of this term which is given at the beginning of the verse and is apparently part of a double translation: έπεστάτουν των ιερών έ ρ γ ω ν .

335

Similarly, there appear two other terms for the Temple-

singers and Temple-servants. I Esd renders ‫' משוררים‬singers' once by ψάλτης in a passage where the connection with the Temple is not wholly clear, 5:41 (2:65). The singers of the Temple, however, are referred to as ιερο-ψάλται in all six cases. Neither ψάλτης nor ιεροψάλτης appears elsewhere in the L X X . 2nd century

336

The latter does appear in an inscription from the

B.C.E.

The picture is similar regarding ‫ נתינים‬, rendered in I Esd as ίερόδουλοι 3

(6 times), a term which does not occur elsewhere in the L X X . " The Greek term is well documented in the papyri and inscriptions of the last three centuries

B.C.E.

referring to servants of the sanctuaries.

We mention in passing I Esd's equivalent for ‫' שוערים‬gate-keepers', though not derived from ιερο-, viz. θυρωροί (7 times).

338

Again, θυρωροί is

attested in papyri and inscriptions of the 2nd1 ‫ ־‬s t centuries

B.C.E,

albeit not

specifically in reference to gate-keepers of a sanctuary. The translator's choice of equivalents for 'singers', 'temple-servants' and 'gate-keepers' illustrates the way he drew on his own linguistic milieu, selecting words current in the cultic language of his immediate surroundings. He was aware of the technical status of the terms in his Vorlage, and that ‫; מ‬

A similar redundancy is found in another title appearing in the Story of the Three Youths: οι σ ω μ α τ ο φ ύ λ α κ α οί Φ υ λ ά σ σ ο ν τ ε ς τό σ ώ μ α , 3:4; see ρ. 88.

'* In the L X X , the singers are simply οί (JSOVTCS (3 times in Chr; 21 times in Ezr-Neh) or οί ψάλτψόοί (9 times in Chr). '

‫מ‬

In Ezr-Neh, • ‫ נ ת י נ י‬is transliterated; in its single appearance in 1 C h r 9:2, it is derived from ‫ נתן‬and rendered by όιδόναι.

m

The word occurs at random in the L X X (3 times), but the gate-keepers par

excellence,

namely, the group which plays a specific part in the Temple maintenance, are usually termed πυλωροί in the L X X (28 times in Ezr-Neh and Chr).

254

I Esdras

they demanded suitable technical parallels. Moreover, he used them with remarkable consistency, inasmuch as consistency is not one of his characteristics. However, in respect of his independence within the tradition of the L X X , one must proceed cautiously, taking the following points into account: (1) The three terms discussed above function as technical terms for the first time in Ezr-Neh-Chr. (2) The translator of I Esd apparently did not know of or at least did not make use of the known Greek translations to Ezr-Neh (whether L X X or not) and Chr. (3) Consequently, the translator of I Esd worked in a vacuum in regard to these terms. He cannot be said to have deviated from an existing translation-tradition but only to have been unacquainted with any such tradition, and was thus obliged to fall back on his own experience in seeking the appropriate solutions. 4, One additional technical term is that of the priestly and Levitical ‫' מחלקות‬divisions'. This is rendered in LXX-Chr mostly by διαίρεσις (17 times) and εφημερία (10 times). The translator of I Esd is not aware of these equivalents. When he encountered the term, he rather choseφυλή, the well-known equivalent of ‫' שבט‬tribe' in the L X X ; 1:4, 10 (2 Chr 35:4, 10); 7:9 (Ezr 6:18). Why did the translator choose to describe the priestly and Levitical divisions as φυλαί? He might have adhered to φυλή since he was acquainted with a meaning known from Egyptian epigraphic sources of the 3rd century

B.CF..,

in which φυλή indicates a sub-division of

priests in Egyptian sanctuaries. Another term used by our translator points in the same direction: ‫שרי הבהגי‬0 'the chiefs of the priests' he consistently renders with οί φυλάρχοι των ίεραΙν; 8:54, 58, 92 (8:24, 29; 10:5). For him, then, the 'chiefs of the priests' are the chiefs of the φυλαί, the divisions of the priests." m

9

A text from Canopus, Egypt (3rd century B . C E , the reign of Ptolemy Eucrgctcs), reveals both the use of φυλή as a priestly division and the use of φυλάρχο? as the head of such a division. The writer specifies that in addition to the four priestly divisions (φυλαί) found in every sanctuary, an exUa fifth division was added, over

255

Translation

It should be emphasized, however, that our translator seems to have combined the different uses of φυλή and φυλάρχος. He may well have been familiar with the technical use of the terms surrounding the sanctuaries in his day, but he also adopted their non-cultic meaning as used in the L X X . Thus, he employs φυλή to denote Judah and Benjamin, 2:7; 5:63; 9:5 (without parallel in the MT, Ezr 1 ;5; 4:1; 10:9), and φυλάρχοι for the M‫״‬

heads of tribes of Israel, 7:8 (6:17). He may have understood that the priests and Levites were divided according to the divisions of the people, that is the tribes.

M!

Indeed, the related ‫ מפלגות‬is rendered by μεριδαρχία, a

sort of 'district-governorship'. In this case, the terms lie beyond the domain of sancta.

b. Governmental Administration The distance between the sphere of the Temple and that of the Government need not be great; some of the terms mentioned above in reference to the Temple infringe on the realm of administration. It is here, more than any other realm of activity, that the equivalents of the translator are best explained as having come from his own linguistic environment. It

which a division-head (φυλάρχος) was appointed, as with the other four: Προσαποδειχθήναι

δε π ρ ο ς τ α ί ς

νϋν ύπαρχούοαις

τέσσαρσι

φ υ λ α ΐ ς του

πλήθους τώι‫ ׳‬ίερέωι‫ ׳‬τώι‫ ׳‬ε ν εκαστωι iepiiii και άλλην ή π ρ ο σ ο ν ο μ α α θ ή σ ε τ α ι π έ μ π τ η φυλή τώι‫ ׳‬Ε υ ε ρ γ ε τ ώ ν θεών... μ ε τ ε χ ε ι ν δέ και τ ο υ ς 6 κ τ η ς π έ μ π τ η ς φυλής τ ω ν Ε υ ε ρ γ ε τ ώ ν θεών των ά γ ν ε ι ώ ν και τ ω ν άλλων α π ά ν τ ω ν των ε ν τ ο ϊ ς ί ε ρ ο ϊ ς , και Φΰλαρχον αύτης

ε ί ν α ι , καθά και ε π ί των άλλων

τεσσάρων

φυλών υ π ά ρ χ ε ι . See Dittenberger {!903), 56:20-30. Cf. L X X Deui 31:28; Josh 11:23 ‫" ויתנה יהושע לנחלה לישראל כ מ ח ל ק ת ם ל ש ב ט י ה ם‬and Joshua assigned it to Israel to share according to their tribal divisions", also Josh 12:7; 18:10. Indeed in Chr itself ‫ מ ח ל ק ו ת‬may indicate the divisions of both the people and the Temple personnel; cf. Japhet (1968), pp. 344ff, who, however, classifies our verses with those indicating the divisions of Temple personnel.

256

I Esdras

would be incorrect, however, to infer from this that I Esd should be treated as a reliable historical document. In fact, at times the opposite is true, as when contemporary concepts are used anachronistically. The translator's sources left room for interpretation and elaboration, and it is interesting to observe his skill in an area where other translators might remain stilted and obscure. 1. The translator's skill is especially apparent in regard to official correspondence. Instead of the confused and disorderly text of Ezr 4:6-11, we find in I Esd 2:15-16 a well-organized opening.

342

The credit for the

exemplary arrangement does not necessarily belong to the translator since his source text may have differed from the MT; his formulation, however, is outstanding, especially the conclusion in 2:15 ,.,Ka‫־‬reYpa4>ei‫׳׳‬... T f p imoyeypau-peua emo‫־‬ToXrji‫׳‬. Also worthy of note is the response of the king in 2:21 (4:17): ...dvTeypat'pev... TT\V UTroyeypapueva. The verb which gives a certain grace to the presentation of the following letter, tnToypticpeiv, is found in a perfectly parallel use in Esth 8:12 (Addition E 1): <5v e c m v dvTiypaqVw Tfjs emo‫״‬ro\fjs T & i m o y e y p a p p e v a ; also in 2 Mace 9:18 eypcuj)e... Tf)i‫ ׳‬uTToyeypauuevriv em.cn‫־‬oAfji‫ ׳‬and elsewhere in 1-3 Mace. Needless to say, this use is formulaic in inscriptions and papyri, used to indicate 'that which is written below'. One particular use of a formula occurs in 8:8 (Ezr 7:11) TrpoaTreaovTos 8c Toi! ypacpevros npoaTdypaTos ov eort avriypacpoi' T O vnoiceiuerov "Now the edict reached Ezra..., of which the following is a copy". Again we are not concerned with the precise relationship between the source and the translation because even i f the translator's Vorlage differed in details, the particular manner of expression is entirely his own. The verb rrpoaTfiTrTeif which in the L X X has a different meaning (e.g., 'to bow', 'to fall'), appears in documents with the meaning 'to reach somebody, to come into one's hands'. One might compare LXX-Esth 9:4 rrpoaeTreaeu m

Cf. Ezr7:11-12, and the discussion on pp. 41-43.

257

Translation

γαρ τό πρόσταγμα τοϋ βασιλέως; 3 Mace 3:25 άμα τώ προσπεσεΐν τήν έπιστολήν; 3 Mace 4:1 δπου προσέπιπτε τοϋτο το πρόσταγμα, and further in a papyrus from the 2nd century

B.C.E.:

προσπεσούσης μοι

της επιστολής, and others like it. Similarly, the last verb in 8:8 -ύποκείσθαι 'to be given below in the text' - finds a parallel only in 1 Mace 12:7 ώς τό αντίγραφο!/ υπόκειται. This usage is especially common in the papyri, e.g., in the Zenon Papyri 355, 122: κατά την... συγγραφήν, ής τό άντίγραφον υπόκειται. In addition to ύποκείσθαι, ύπογράφειν and προσπίπτειν, we find a number of other verbs belonging to the realm of reports, official writings and proclamations: Ίστορεΐν (3 times), ύπομνηματίζεσθαι, άντιγράφειν, άπογράφειν, προερεΐν, προσφωνεΐν (3 times), άποσημαίνειν, διαγορύειν, υπαγόρευειν. These verbs, appearing either in I Esd alone or in I Esd and 1-3 Mace, are attested in epigraphic sources from the last centuries

B.C.E.

with similar meanings and in similar contexts. The use of all these terms gives I Esd a distinctive character within the L X X . Also belonging to this group of terms are words such as τόμος 'roll of papyrus' 6:2 (Ezr 6:21 ‫)מגלה ־־־‬, found also in LXX-Isa 8:1 for ‫;גליון‬ άντίγραφον (2 times), and further in LXX-Esth, Ep.-Jer and 1 Mace; όνοματογραφία - a word unique to I Esd within the L X X and virtually first attested in the Greek - for ‫' שמות‬names', 6:11 and 8:48 (5:10; 8:20). Thus, a simple word like ‫ שמות‬becomes in the translator's hands something of a technical term. 2. Several other 'official' words point to the translator's linguistic individuality, the act of subverting an order is referred to by άκυροϋν in 6:31 (6:11), a word which recurs only in 4 Mace. Someone who violates an order and becomes liable to punishment is threatened with κολά£ειν j

n

8:24 (7:26), a term which appears once in LXX-Dan 6:12(13) with no parallel in the M T , in Wisdom (12 times) and 1-4 Mace (8 times). One who accepts responsibility on himself is said to έπιδέχεσθαι ~ ‫עמד על‬

258

IEsdras

9:14 (10:15), elsewhere limited to Sirach and 1-3 Mace. The action of one who assists him is described as συμβοαβεύειν ‫( עזר ־־‬ibid), which is unique to I Esd. Especially noteworthy is his use of έμποιεΐν = 2 : 6 1 ) with the meaning attested in epigraphic sources 'to lay claim'. I f these particular words, and others, had not been familiar to the translator, he would presumably have made use of the standard equivalents of the L X X . In the official realm proper, we find that the translator's terminology for taxation, though akin to that of the LXX, is nonetheless morphologically distinct. Three times he uses φορολογία which elsewhere occurs once in 1 Mace. Especially noteworthy is his paraphrase in 2:18 (4:13) ‫מנדה בלו‬ ‫ ~ והלך לא ינוננון‬φορολογίαν ού μή ύττομείνωσιν δοϋναι. In addition, the adjective αφορολόγητος appears in the epilogue of the Story of the Three Youths, 4:50, in describing the special privileges of those exempt from the royal tax; cf. 1 Mace 11:28 ποιήσαι την ‫י‬Ιουδαίαν άφορολόγητον. Both terms are well-attested in papyri and inscriptions from the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C.E.

3. Even more interesting are the translator's administrative concepts as reflected in a number of Hebrew-Greek equivalents. The first is actually an avoidance of the simple equivalent ‫ ־= עיר‬πόλις, in a number of places where it might have been expected. ΤΙόλις is reserved in I Esd almost exclusively for Jerusalem - some twelve times. Other cities are referred to 45

in various ways:Ιδίοις, κατοικίαι (2 times), κώμαι.' An exception is 5:8 (Ezr 2:1)‫ ־= איש לעירו‬έκαστος εις την ΐδιαν πόλιν; this verse, however, is different from the others in that the word ‫ עיר‬is in the singular. In spite of this verse, we may surmise that for the translator of I Esd Jerusalem was ή ττόλις and the rest of the country ή χώρα, just as Alexandria was for a considerable time ή πόλις and Egypt ή χώρα. Indeed, twice, 5:45 (2:70) and 9:37 (Neh 7:72), we find a> Ιερουσαλήμ και ev τ ή χώρα m

Κώμαι serves in the L X X to translate • ‫ ע ד י‬a number of times, quite appropriately, e.g., Josh 10:39.

5:3

Translation

259

corresponding to ‫ ;בעריהם‬the Greek phrase speaks for itself, regardless of its exact Vorlage.™ A more inclusive concept of administrative division is indicated by a pair of words already mentioned above: φυλή / μεριδαρχία. I fφυλή is not, for the translator, a division exclusively of priests but also of the people in general, the pairing of these two terms is interesting in that it combines ethnic and geographic criteria, a division which must be attributed to a person knowledgeable in such matters. Μεριδαρχία itself is a technical term, even i f we do not know for certain whether the translator was familiar in his time with the division of the province into meridarchies. While μεριδαρχία is not found at all in the L X X , I Esd makes use of it four times: 1:5 (2 Chr 35:5, apparently for ‫ פלגה‬or 35:12) 1:10 ,(‫חלקה‬, for 8:28,(‫(מפלגה‬Ezr 8:1 ‫ ;הוגיחשס‬it is questionable whether this was in the translator's text), and 5:4, towards the end of the epilogue of the Story of the Three Youths. We read in 1 Mace that Jonathan was appointed μεριδάρχης (and strategos) and the same title appears in a papyrus from the 2nd century

B.C.E.

} 4 5

It is doubtful whether the regional connotation of

the term is appropriate for the Hebrew terms it substitutes in Ezr; in fact, it is possible to argue that the translator of I Esd added an element foreign to the context. Nevertheless, the very use of such terms is worthy of note. The translator's skillful use of technical terms is most obvious in his treatment of the term 'Abar Nahra. In the L X X , ‫עבר הנהר‬, ‫ה‬/‫ עבר נהרא‬is rendered literally by πέραν

του ποταμού; in I Esd, it has one of two

equivalents; Συρία και Φοινίκη (7 times) or κοίλη Συρία και Φοινίκη (6 times). We find the latter also in the epilogue to the Story of the Three Youths, 4:48. There are no apparent conditions which render the appearance iu

PeUetier (1962), pp. 54-56. He shows how the idiomatic expression regarding the status of Alexandria in the Letter of Aristeas (22): e i s rt

τ ή ν π ό λ ι ν και τ ή ν

χώραν becomes els τ ε τάς πόλ6ι5 ημών και τ ή ν χώραν in the hands of Josephus (Ant. X I I , § 2 8 ) , who was no longer aware of the special status of the city. 545

Cf. also Josephus, Ant. X V , §216.

260

I Esdras

of one or the other predictable. The translator interprets rather than translates literally the term he found before him; in his view, 'Abar Nahra was nothing other than 'Coele-Syria and Phoenicia' or 'Syria and Phoenicia'. We cannot know for certain to what extent the translator's use of these phrases is anachronistic. Our sources are few and less than definitive, and the problem of 'Syria and Phoenicia' has received different solutions. We can probably say that I Esd uses later terminology to describe an earlier period. 'Coele-Syria' does appear already in the 4th century B . C E , but it is doubtful whether the term is an administrative one.

346

'Syria and Phoenicia'

becomes a standard administrative term in the days of Ptolemaic rule in the area, and 'Coele-Syria and Phoenicia' under that of the Seleucids.

347

It

is also questionable whether these terms indicated the fifth satrapy as described by Herodotus 3, 91, corresponding to 'Abar Nahra. More likely, I Esd uses terms indicating the reduced satrapy (ή κάτω Συρία) in order to render a term with a much wider sense. It is tempting to date I Esd precisely on the basis of these terms but this is no easy task, and perhaps impossible. Schalit has suggested the 3rd century B . C E ,

344

Bikerman held

that I Esd, as well as 1-3 Mace and the Letter of Aristeas, were written in

3 4 6

See Leuze (1935), p. 366 (210): "Auch 1st zu betonen, dass Συρία wie κοίλη Συρία im Periplus nur als geographisehe Landsehaftsbezciehnungen aufzufassen sind, nichl als politisehe oder adminstrative Einheiten..."; also Biekerman (1947*), pp. 256-268, who clearly distinguishes the literary sources from the official ones. Sec further Schalit (1954), p. 64.

5 4 7

Bengston (1952), pp. 166ff.

3 1 8

Schalit (1954), p. 77. is very precise: "I incline to the supposition that the book of I Esd was written during the 3rd century B . C . , in the days of Ptolemaic rule in southern Syria, and that the author inserted into it the 'Ptolemaic' interpretation of κοίλη Συρία και Φοινίκη, in other words, the meaning given to it by Ptolemy Lagus when he wished to carry out the conquest of Syria in its full extent". In order to accept this, we should at least be able to produce evidence that Ptolemy Lagus himself made use of the term 'Coele-Syria and Phoenicia' to indicate 'Abar Nahra, or thai it was an accepted Ptolemaic term for the region.

261

Translation

the 2nd century B . C . E due to their use of 'Coele-Syria', the common administrative term of the time.

149

We may further suggest that the

translator's indiscriminate use of both terms points to a date in the transition d

period from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule, between the 3"* to 2° centuries. Thus in the Hephzibah inscription, from about 195

B.C.R,

the governor is

designated strategos of 'Syria and Phoenicia'; whereas, in a somewhat later inscription from Soloi in Cilicia, the same governor is called strategos of 'Coele-Syria and Phoenicia'.

350

It might still be argued that the mixing

of terminology in I Esd reflects an earlier period and that the available documents simply offer no assistance. 4. Due to the nature of the book, I Esd introduces a number of personages in official capacity, designated by titles characteristic of the translator. We shall mention here only a few which point out his individuality. Most prominent are the φίλοι, a term which appears in I Esd not as a literal equivalent of a parallel title, such as jn 'friend', but with reference to the king's advisors

26,13,8:1,‫עטין‬/‫(וצם‬Ezr 7:14, 15, 28)."' Φίλοι

as an official title is common in LXX-Esth (=‫ אהבים ־‬,‫ שרים‬,‫)חכמים‬, LXX-Dan (~ ‫ הדברין‬,‫ )רברבמן‬and 1-4 Mace; cf. also Prov 25:1, [

0

‫יה‬

φίλοι. It is doubtful whether the translators, including I Esd's, considered the terms essentialy equivalent, identifying the character of the administrative institution in their source with that of the φίλοι.

352

It is

more reasonable to assume that they selected a common title - and φίλοι is indeed very common, especially in the Ptolemaic period - from the M

Bickerman (1947*), pp. 264, 256. ,M

‫ ־‬Stern (1981), pp. 65-68. 351

In the first and last verses, the word occurs alongside the customary L X X title σ υ μ β ο υ λ ε υ τ ή ς , συμβουλεύων; see p. 242-243.

352

Sec Donner (1961), pp. 270-271. See in particular L X X - 1 Kgs 4:5 (‫־־ רעה )המלך‬ σύμβουλο5. See also the comments of Bar-Kochva (1980), pp. 182, 184, 232-233, on the possible Vorlage of 1 Mace 3:38, 6:28. Had he considered the above series of equivalents, he might have refrained from simply retroverting φίλος to ‫רע‬.

262

I Esdras

political life of their own day, in order to render a broadly comparable term. A title unique to I Esd is the translator's equivalent for ‫סופר‬: Ezra the scribe is always ό αναγνώστης. It may be that the translator found a title which perfectly matched his conception of Ezra, since the meaning of the Greek word is both 'reader' and 'secretary': Α ν α γ ν ώ σ τ η ς 'reader' characterizes Ezra as the 'reader of the Torah' in the account of Neh 8, which forms part of the translated material in I Esd, while, αναγνώστης 'secretary', which appears in inscriptions for the secretary of the city or Gerousia, corresponds to the Hebrew title ‫( סופר‬cf. its regular translation in the L X X by γραμματεύς). It appears that the translator of I Esd was not altogether sure of how to deal with the title ‫בעל טעם‬.

‫ג‬5‫ג‬

He did, however, make an attempt by

rendering it ό τ ά π ρ ο σ π ί π τ ο ν τ α in 2:16 (Ezr 4:8), or the somewhat clearer ό γράφων τ ά προσπίπτοντα in 2:21 (4:17). We may recall that he used the verb προσπίπτειν with reference to letters; here he seems to refer to the person in charge of recording events. Let us note two additional curiosities in the translation which further demonstrate the translator's interest in official matters and his efforts to carefully select his terminology. In 1:30 (2 Chr 35:25), the translator read instead of the M T ' s ‫" השרים והשרות‬singers, male and female", ‫השרים‬ ‫" והשרות‬the ministers and the lady-ministers", and translated it by 01 προκαθήμενοι σύν γυναιξίν "the ministers with their wives"! In 1:14 (35:15) he renders ‫( חוזה המלך‬which he apparently construed in the plural) by 01 παρά τού βασιλέως, 'the king's men', exactly like the expression of 1 Mace 2:15. The translator took the phrase to mean 'those who see the king' (cf. the phrase

2

‫ראי פני המלך‬

Kgs 25:19; Esth 1:14), and rend

by a parallel, though not literal term. Such a translation may derive from the difficulty of accounting for the title ‫' חוזה‬seer' in this context; in any See pp. 243-244.

263

Translation

case, the translator integrated his solution into a scene most familiar to him: the retinue of the king.

c. The King Finally, we come to the king himself. As expected, we find the translator's particular touch in this area as well. 1. To crown a king, ‫להמליך‬, is rendered in 1 Esd three times by an expanded expression, quite in contrast to his usual conciseness: άναδει.κνύειν βασιλέα, 1:32, 35, 44 (2 Chr 36:1, 4, 10), cf. as well 1:41 (36:9), 2:3 (Ezr 1:2), instead of the L X X ' s usual βασιλεύει!/. The verb is used in similar contexts in LXX-Dan and in 2-3 Mace. The entire expression is found in 2 Mace 9:25. It can be said that both stylistic considerations and a particular interest account for this rendering. The same factors account for the translator's use of βασιλικός to indicate that which belongs to the king. This adjective replaces expressions with ‫ מלך‬in the construct state in Num 20:17; 21:22; 2 Sam 14:26, but is best attested in LXX-Esth (6 times) and LXX-Dan (8 times) and especially in 1-4 Mace. We are hardly surprised to find I Esd making ample use of the word (8 times). The use of this adjective is not simply a matter of literary style: the translator is fully aware of its meaning. Thus, he renders ‫ ואצרות המלך ושריו‬by και τ ά ς βασιλικός άποθήκας in 1:51 (2 Chr 36:18); and ...‫ ושריו‬.‫ מרכוש המלך‬by έκ των βασιλικών in 1:7 (35:7-8). Finally, we find it in a passage in which it is not strictly required by the Vorlage: ‫ ~ וביתה מלו יתעבד‬και τ ά υπάρχοντα αυτού εΐναι βασιλικά, 6:31 (Ezr 6:11), that is, he who disobeys the word of the king forfeits his property to the crown. The parallel from Dan 2:5 speaks for itself: ‫ ~ ובתיכון נולי יתשמון‬και άναληφθήσεται υμών τά υπάρχοντα ε ι ς τό βασιλικόν/

54

Cf. also L X X Ezr 6:11 and Dan 3:29.

264

I Esdras We will briefly mention here an additional phrase; even though, it is

unclear whether it comes from the hands of the translator or from a variant Hebrew text: seven times we find in I Esd, corresponding to the title ‫מלכא‬ 'the king', the expanded κύριος βασιλεύς, a customary expression of deference to (gods and) kings in Greek sources; see also Dan 4:21 ‫מרי‬ ‫)מראי( מלכא‬, and pp. 221-223. 2. While there are other such details indicating the translator's proximity to and reverence for the king, none of them is quite as expressive as τά φιλάνθρωπα. I Esd 8:10 opens with the words και τά φιλάνθρωπα 55

εγώ κρίνας. These words have no parallel in Ezr 7A3.'

The Greek term

serves to characterize the benevolent rule of the king and is especially appropriate for the Persian kings. Thus, Esth 8:13 (Addition E l l ) : έτυχε ν ής εχομεν προς πάι‫ ׳‬έθνος φιλανθρωπίας έπί τοσούτον "he enjoyed the benevolence which we have for every nation". It is similarly used in the papyri and other works of the last centuries

B.C.E.

3 5

"

Φιλανθρωπία is a good example of a key-word embodying the values of a society, and one that characterizes the orientation of our translator, no matter what source lay before him. It is integral to I Esd, whose raison d'etre is the Story of the Three Youths, a story which serves as a paradigm of royal benevolence and good will.

K 5

One doubts whether this is merely an unexpected flourish on the part of the translator, or is somehow connected with the last two words of the preceding verse in the M T , which have no equivalent in I E s d : ‫גמיר וכענת‬. It is possible that the translator read ‫ ורעות‬instead of ‫וכענת‬. The word ‫ רעות‬appears twice in the book; 8:16 ( E z r 7:18) (‫־< )כץ־עות )האלהים‬θέλημα, as expected; and 6:21 (5:17) ‫!הרעות )מלכא על דנה ישלח‬ (‫ = עלינא‬κρίνηται. The latter supports the possibility that we have here a double or expanded translation of ‫רעות‬.

356

In a papyrus adduced by Diltenberger (139), we read:

...στήλην,

έν

ήι

αναγράψαμε ν

τ ή ν γ ε γ ο ν υ ΐ α ν ήμΐν ύ φ ' υμών περί τούτων φιλανθρωπία^, ί ν α ή υ μ ε τ έ ρ α χ ά ρ ι ς α ε ί μ ν η σ τ ο ς υπάρχει. Similarly, Hecataeusof Abdera proclaims φιλανθρωπία to be the outstanding virtue of Ptolemy I (Ag Ap 1, 186).

265

Translation d. God

1. The translator's view of man's relationship with God finds expression in a pair of concepts, which, though not common in the book, nevertheless leaves an undeniable impression: etxrejkta - Suaaepeia.

357

I Esd is not strikingly different from the L X X in its use of these words; yet, a certain individuality can be detected. The stem acj‫־‬3, and especially with the privative prefix, is common in the L X X : thus we find the verb doefteiv, which appears twice in I Esd, d a e ^ p a and dae(3f|s. The positive form with eu (evoe&eia, euae(3f)s) also appears in the L X X ; although, it is less common in the canonical books. Thus, ‫ יראת הי‬,‫ יראה‬is rendered as euae(361a four times in Prov and Isa, but dozens of times in 4 Mace, with five occurrences in 2-3 Mace. The word also appears in I Esd 1:21, a passage without parallel in the MT. On the other hand, §uaae(kta, along with 8uaae(3r|pa, 8uaae(3fjs, are found only in 2-3 Mace, and twice in I Esd 1:40, 49 (2 Chr 36:8, 16), without a parallel in the M T that would explain the translator's choice of words. The fact that the Greek words have no direct source in the M T may cause them to assume an undue importance in the thought-world of the translator, yet together with this, they surely must indicate that in his eyes at least, the relations between man and God navigate the poles of euaefkia and SuaaefSeia. 2. Divine epithets further reflect die translator's concept of God and the individuality wiUt which he expressed it. Let us describe his approach in two points. His treatment of ‫אלהי השמים‬/‫ אלה שמיא‬is outstanding. He consistently avoided the common epithet. It is never rendered literally, to

These are fundamental concepts in Greek religion. See the chapter devoted to 'Eusebeia' in Kern (1926), pp. 273-290, which begins: "Durch das Wort oeßfoflai bezeichnet der Hellene das Verhältnis des Menschen zu den überirdischen Gewalten. E s ist die Scheu, die er ihnen gegenüber empfindet, die Ehrfurcht, die er ihnen schuldet... So ist die tvatßtia

so alt wie die Religion...".

266

IEsdras

define, as it were, God's sphere of influence.

358

Sometimes, ‫ שמיא‬is simply

not represented (3 times), and in those instances, one might argue that this element was lacking in the Vorlage. On one occasion, the epithet is broken up by the insertion of an adjective: ‫ ־־ אלה שמיא וארעא‬του κυρίου του κτίσαντος τον ούρανόν και την γήν, 6:12 ( E z r 5 : l l ) . Here too, however, an argument can be made for a variant in a more expansive text: ‫אלה עבד‬ ‫שמיא וארעא‬. The assumption of a variant is much less likely when ‫אלה‬ ‫ שמיא‬is rendered by ό θεός ό ύψιστος, as in 6:30; 8:19, 21 (6:10; 7:21, 35 5

23); see however, the repeated ‫ אלהא עלאה‬in Dan 3:26, 32; 5:18, 21 etc. '

Two instances are particularly interesting: 2:3 (1:2) ‫ =־ ה׳ אלהי השמים‬ό κύριος τού Ι σ ρ α ή λ κύριος ό ύψιστος, and 6:14 (5:12) ‫ ~ לאלה שמיא‬ε ί ς τόν κύριον τού "Ισραήλ τόν ούράνιον. We will not go into all the problems these verses present, and suffice with three comments. Firstly, in the latter case the translation is closest to the source when it renders ‫שמיא‬ by the adjective ουράνιος; only, it also causes the original connotation to recede. Secondly, the whole import of the epithet is entirely changed through the additional ό κύριος τού Ισραήλ which precedes it. Finally, we find the translator employing κύριος instead of θεός. LXX-Dan also renders ‫ אלה שמיא‬by ό κύριος ό ύψιστος, twice, Dan 2:18, 19.

360

The second point which we wish to discuss is that of the translator's use of κύριος. Ό κύριος in I Esd is no longer, as in the L X X , a sort of "‫ י‬Baudissin (1929), p. 378: "Der Autor vermeidet es, von einem spiritualisicrenden Gottesbegriff ausgehend, Gott unter irgendeinem Namen in eine unmittelbare Bezeihung zum Himmel zu setzen". 559

Grinz (1963), p. 144, sees the divine epithet ό θεός ό ϋ ψ ι σ τ ο ΐ in connection with the title adopted by the High Priest Yohanan: ‫וכשגברה מ ל כ ו ת חשמונאי ו נ צ ח ו • ה ת ק י נ ו‬ ‫שיהו מוכירין ש • שמים אפילו בשטרות וכך היו כ ו ת ב י ם בשנת כ ך וכך ליוחנן כהן גדול ל א ל עליון‬ "and when the government of the Hasmoneans became strong and defeated them, they ordained that they should mention the name of God even on bonds and they used to write thus: In the year so and so of Johanan, High Priest to the most High God"(Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-Shana 18b).

3 6 0

In L X X - D a n we find also a literal translation of ‫ א ל ה שמיא‬in 2:37; cf. v. 28.

267

Translation

proper name, a parallel to the tetragrammaton, but a title which retains the content of the Greek word - and of the Masoretic reading for m n \ i.e., ‫אדני‬. Accordingly, it can govern the genitival case of 'Israel' as well as 3

1

other modifiers. * These expressions in Greek give no cause at all for assuming a Hebrew variant with the tetragrammaton and must therefore derive from the translator. The use of Kupios reveals yet another similarity with the translators of Esther and Daniel, stratum of the L X X .

51

362

and thus represents a later

363

' 0 K u p L o j α ύ τ ο ΰ , αυτών, etc.. ό κύριος• των π ά τ ε ρ ω ν ; see Baudissin (1929), p. 370: "Danehen hat 1 Esra ein κύριος

in deutlich appellativem Wert, das mit

Genetiven verbunden wird". a

Baudissin, ibid, pp. 284-285, 308, 371.

53

Hanhart (1977), pp. 201, 221. For further discussion of this point see especially pp. 209-211 and Hanhart's conclusion on p. 212: "Innerhalb der gesamten Überlieferung der L X X aber stellt es nach Sprachgebrauch und Aussage ein Stadium letzter Reife dar, das sich am deutlichsten manifestiert in dem 1. Esrabuch eigentümlichen Begriff des 'Herren Israels' (κύριοςΊαραήλ)".

1 Esdras

268

Conclusion

The translation preserved in I Esd is thus highly distinct within the corpus of the L X X . The various ways in which the translator avoids manacling the Greek to the language of his source are in themselves enough to distinguish him from many other translators. Beyond the general literary orientation of the translator, we find that there were certain matters which engaged his particular interest. In matters related to the Temple, government administration, the monarchy and the divinity, he is at his creative best, borrowing terms from his milieu, selecting and discarding particular words and searching out the ever-elusive mat juste for his translation. It is very difficult to reach definite conclusions concerning the world of any translator since his work is necessarily aimed at representing the world of his source rather than his own. The milieu of the translator is further obscured by the fact that he operates on the basis of an established and even sacred tradition of translation. Nevertheless, an examination of the terminology peculiar to a certain translator and which reflects his own interest in certain areas, may also bear fruit for the study of his milieu. In this particular case, we are dealing with a translator who drew heavily from his official linguistic milieu, which would seem to date him to the second century B . C E .

Summary

269

SUMMARY

The author of I Esd composed his work on the basis of 2 Chr 35-36, Ezra and Neh 8, with the addition of the apocryphal Story of the Youths, unparalleled in the canonical books. Our study of I Esd analyzed this book from three different perspectives which together depict the overall process of its creation: the composition of the book, its Vorlage, and the nature of its translation. The book in its present form is a vibrant translation into Greek of a Hebrew-Aramaic work. The translator of I Esd does not belong to the main stream of LXX-translators, but is rather a unique and creative translator, best compared with the LXX-translator of Daniel. He expends great efforts in presenting a fluent Greek composition, often allowing his target language and his cultural milieu to interfere with an accurate and faithful translation of the original. Only a close investigation of his translation technique, made possible by comparing the parallel sections in the M T , gives us a glimpse of the original text now concealed by the veil of translation. The relationship between the Vorlage of I Esd and the parallel parts in the M T provides an outstanding case for textual criticism. Both the text crystallized in the M T and the text preserved in I Esd underwent a massive amount of changes after the texts took their different courses. Nevertheless, the variance between the texts seems to be due to the natural course of their transmission. Our technical / syntactical outline of the differences between the texts clearly shows that similar phenomena characterize the development of both texts, except for a few changes which are particularly characteristic of the revision of I Esd.

270

I Esdras In our view, I Esd is indeed a revision of parts of Chr-Ezr-Neh, the

sole purpose of which is the interpolation of the Story of the Youths. Most of the differences between the structure and sequence of the events in I Esd and the canonical books derive from the need to create an appropriate setting for the Story of the Youths. The Story of the Youths is thus the raison d'etre of I Esd. The book has no independent literary or ideological existence without it. The Story of the Youths was added in order to provide Zerubbabel, the scion of the House of David, with a more prominent role in the narrative of the Return. This goal, however, is not achieved by a programmatic, ideological statement, but rather by a 'story'. This story presents an artificial admixture of genres; on the one hand, it elaborates on a common literary motif - a wisdom debate concerning the most powerful factor in the universe, on the other hand, it borrows many themes from the stories of the Return in the canonical books, especially that of Nehemiah who has no role in I Esd. The interpolation of the Story of the Youths results in an impossible combination of two different accounts of the same event: the Return of Zerubbabel is related both in the version of the Story of the Youths and in the version of the canonical books. I Esd thus presents an unreasonable course of events and is therefore, in the final analysis, a rather incoherent composition.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB

Anchor Bible

AJSL

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

BZ

Biblische Zeitschrift

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments HAT

Handbuch zum Alten Testament

HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HSS

Harvard Semitic Studies

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

ICC

International Critical Commentary

JBL

Journal for Biblical Literature

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JQR

Jewish Qurterly Review

JSOR

Journal of the Society of Oriental Research

JThSt

Journal of Theological Studies

KHAT

Kommentar zum Alten Testament

MGWJ

Monatschrift zur Geschichte undWissenschaft des Judentums

OBO

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

OLZ

Orientalische Literaturzeitung

OTL

Old Testament Library

SCS

Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SVT

Supplements Vetus Testamentum

ThQ

Theological Quarterly

VT

Vetus Testamentum

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

BIBLIOGRAPHY O F CITED WORKS

Aejmelaeus, A. 1982

Parataxis in the Septuaginl, Helsinki.

Allen, L.C. 1974

The Greek Chronicles, l - I I (SVT 25, 27), Leiden.

Allgeier, A. 1941

Beobachtungen am Septuagintatext der Bücher Esdras und Nehemias, Biblica 22, pp. 227-251.

Allrik, H.L. 1954

I Esdras according to Codex B and A as Appearing in Zerubabel's List in 1 Esdras 5, 8-23, ZAW 66, pp. 272-292.

Attridge, H.W. 1984

I Esdras, in. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M.E. Stone), Assen-Philadelphia, pp. 157-160.

Avishur, Y. 1974

Pairs of Words in Biblical Literature and their Parallels in Semitic Literature of the Ancient Near East, Diss., Jerusalem [Hebrew]

Baars, W. & J.C.H. Lebram, eds., 1972

/ (3) Esdras,

The Old Testament in Syriac (The Peshitta

Institute, IV), Leiden.

274

I Esaras

Bagnall, R.S. 1976

The Administration

of the Ptolemaic Possessions

Outside

Egypt, Leiden.

Bar-Kochva, B. 1980

The Battles of the Hasmonaeans, Jerusalem [Hebrew].

Barr, J. 1979

The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical

Translations,

Göttingen. 1989

Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, The Cambridge History of Judaism, I I , Cambridge, pp. 79-114

Barthélémy, D. 1982

Critique

Textuelle

de l'Ancien

Testament

(OBO 51/1),

Fribourg-Göttingen.

Batten, L.W. 1913

The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC), Edinburgh.

Baudissin, W.W. 1929

Kyrios, I , Glessen, pp. 359-405.

Bauer, H. and P. Leander, 1927

Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, Tübingen.

Baumgartner, W. 1927

Das Aramäische im Buche Daniel, ZAW 4, pp. 81 -133.

Bayer, P.E. 1911

Das dritte Buch Esdras, Freiburg.

275

Bibliography

Bengston, H. 1952

Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, ΠΙ, München.

Bertholdt, L. 1813

Historisch- kritische Einleitung in sammtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments, ΙΠ, Erlangen, pp. 1005-1013.

Bertholet, A. 1902

Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia (KHAT), Tübingen-Leipzig.

Bewer, J.A. 1919-20 The Gap between Ezra Chapter 1 and 2, AJSL 36, pp. 18-26. 1922

Der Text des Buches Ezra (FRLANT 31 ), Göttingen.

Beyer, K. 1984-94 Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, I-1I, Göttingen.

Bickerman, E.J. 1946

The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1, JBL 65, pp. 249-275.

1947

From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, New York.

1947* La Coelé-Syrie, RB 54, pp. 256-268.

Black, M . 1967

An A ramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts? Oxford.

Β lass, F. & A. Debninner 1961

A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (tr. and revised by R.W. Funk), Chicago & London.

276

I Esdras

Böhler, D. 1997

Die heilige Stadt in Esdras a und Esra-Nehemia, Göttingen.

Brooke, A.E. & N . McLean, eds., 1935

lEsdras, Ezra-Nehemiah, The Old Testament in Greek, I V , Cambridge.

Biichler, A. 1897

Das apokryphische Esrabuch, MGWJ 4 1 , pp. 1-16, 49-66, 97-103.

Bumey, C F . 1922

The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford.

Charles, R H . 1913

The Apocrypha and Pseudoepigrapha

of the Old Testament

in English, I-U, Oxford. 1929

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Oxford.

Coggins, R.G. & M.A. Knibb 1979

The First and Second Books of Esdras (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge.

Cook, S.A. 1913

1 Esdras, in: R.H. Charles, The Apocrypha

and

epigrapha of the Old Testament, I , Oxford, pp. 1-58.

Cowley, A. 1923

A ramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford.

Pseudo­

277

Bibliography

Crenshaw, J.L. 1981

The Contest of Darius' Guards, in: Images of Man and God (ed. B.O. Long), Sheffield, pp. 74-88; 119-120.

Cross, F.M. 1975

The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts, in: F.M. Cross and Sh. Talmon eds., Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge Mass.-London, pp. 306-320.

Dähne, A.F. 1834

Geschichtliche

Darstellung

der

jüdisch-alexandrinischen

Religions Philosophie, Halle, pp. 116-125.

Degen, R. 1969

Altaramäische JH.V.CHR,

Grammatik

der

Inschriften

des

10.-8.

Wiesbaden.

Denter, P.Th. 1962

Die Stellung

der Bücher

Esdras

im Kanon

des

Testaments, Diss., Freiburg.

Dittenberger, W. 1903

Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Leipzig.

Donner, H. 1961

Der Freund des Königs, ZAW 73, pp. 269-277.

Driver, G.R. 1957

2

Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. , Oxford.

Alten

278

I Esdras

Driver, S.R. 1913

Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, Oxford,

Eichhorn, J.G. 1795

Über den apokryphischen Esras, in: Einleitung in die Apo­ kryphischen Schriften, Leipzig, pp. 335-377.

Eskenazi, T.C. 1986

The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras, CBQ 48. pp. 39-61.

Fischer, J. 1904

Das apokryphe

und das kanonische Esrabuch, BZ 2,

pp. 351-364.

Flusser, ü . 1978-80 Tlie Jossipon [Josephus Gorionides], I-II, Jerusalem [Hebrew].

Frankel, Z.

1841

Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, Leipzig.

Fritzsche, O F . 1851

Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des

Alten Testament, I , Leipzig, pp. 1-66. Gardner, A.E. 1986

The Purpose and Date of I Esdras, JJS 37, pp. 18-27.

Gelston, A, 1966

The Foundations of the Second Temple, VT16, pp. 232-235.

279

Bibliography

Gerleman, G. 1948

Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament, Lund.

Glatt, D A . 1991

Chronological

Displacement

in Biblical

and

Related

Literatures, Diss., Philadelphia, pp. 179-222. Goodman, W.R. 1972

A Study of I Esdras 3:1-5:6, Diss., Duke.

Göttsberger, J. 1926

Über das I I I . Kapitel des Esrabuches, JSOR 10, pp. 270-280.

Grintz, Y . M . 1963

Hebrew Literature in the Persian Period, Ch. Albeck Jubilee Volume, Jerusalem, pp. 123-151 [Hebrew].

Guthe, H. 1900

Das dritte Buch Esra, in: E. Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testament, I , Tübingen, pp. 1-23.

Hanhart, R. 1974

Esdrae

liber 1 (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum

V I I I , 1), Göttingen. 1974* Text und Textgeschichte des 1. Esrabuches, Götringen. 1977

Zu Text und Textgeschichte des ersten

Esrabuches,

Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, I , Jerusalem, pp. 201-212. 1993

Esdrae Liber II (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum

1995

Ein unbekannter Text zur griechischen Esra-Überlieferung,

V I I I , 2), Göttingen. Mitteilungen 111-132.

des Septuaginta-Unternehmens

XXII,

pp.

280

I Esdras

Haran, M . 1986

Explaining the Identical Lines at the End of Chronicles and the Beginning of Ezra, Bible Review 2, pp. 18-20.

Heinemann, Y. 1950

77«‫ ׳‬Ways of the A ggada, Jerusalem [Hebrew].

Heltzer, M . 1977

Ein epigraphischer Blick auf das I I I . Esrabuch, Biblica 58, pp. 62-72.

1980

The Greek Text of I Esdras I I I 1-2; Its Date and Subordination at the Achaemenian Court, Henoch 2, pp. 150-155.

Heltzer, M . & M . Ohana 1978

The Extra-Biblical Tradition of Hebrew Personal Names, Haifa [Hebrew].

Höffken, P. 1975

Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach über Esra?, ZA W 87, pp. 184-202.

Holladay, C. R. 1983

Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, I , Chico.

Howorth, H.H. 1893

A Criticism of the Sources and the Relative Importance and Value of the Canonical Book of Ezra and the Apocryphal Book Known as Esdras I , Transactions

of the Ninth

International Congress of Orientalists, I I , London, pp. 68-85. 1893* The Real Character and the Importance of the First Book of Esdras, I-fV, The Academy 43, pp. 13-14, 60, 106, 174-175, 326-327, 524; ibid, 44, pp. 233-234, 73-74, 295, 549-550.

281

Bibliography

Howorth, H.H. 1901

Some Unconveneional Views on the Text of the Bible, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 23, pp. 147- 159, 305-325.

1902

ibid,

24, pp. 147-172, 332-340.

1903

ibid, 25, pp. 15-22, 90-96.

1904

ibid, 26, pp. 25-31, 63-69, 94-100.

1905

ibid, 27, pp. 267'-278.

1907

* i d , 29, pp. 31-38,61-69.

Humbert, P. 1928

Magna est Veritas et Praevalet (3 Esra 4, 35), OLZ 31, pp. 148- 150.

1967

Note sur YASAD et ses derives, in: Hebräische

Wortforschung,

Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von W. Baumgartner (SVT 16), Leiden, pp. 135-142.

Hurvitz, A, 1971

"Diachronie Chiasm" in Biblical Hebrew, in: Bible and Jewish History - Studies dedicated to the Memory of J. Liver (ed. B. Uffenheimer), Tel Aviv, pp. 248-255 [Hebrew].

1972

The Transition

Period

in Biblical

Hebrew,

Jerusalem

[Hebrew].

In der Smitten, W.Th. 1967

Esra, Quellen, Überlieferung

und Geschichte (BZAW 102).

Berlin. 1971

Review of K.F. Pohlmann, BO 28, pp. 381-382.

1972

Zur Pagenerzählung im in.Esra, VT 22, pp. 492-495.

282

1 Esdras

Jacob, A. ]912

Septuagintastudien zu Ezra, Diss., Breslau.

Jahn, G,

1909

Die Bücher Esra (A und B) und Nehemja, Leiden.

Japhet, S. 1968

The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and EzraNehemiah Investigated Anew, VT 18, pp. 330-371.

1982

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, ZAW 94, pp. 66-98.

1991

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, SVT43, pp. 298-313.

1993 / & II Chronicles (OTL), Lewisville. Jellinek, A. 1938 Bet ha-Midrasch, I - V I , Jerusalem. 2

Kahana, A. (ed.) 1930

The Apocrypha I-II, Jerusalem [Hebrew].

Kaufmann, Y. 1956

I Esdras, Beit Miqra 1, pp. 103-107 [Hebrew].

1967

Israel's

Religion

(Toledot ha-Emuna ha-Yisre'elit),

IV,

Jerusalem and Tel Aviv [Hebrew].

Kellermann, U. 1967

Nehemia, Quellen, Überlieferung

und Geschichte (BZAW

102), Berlin.

Kern, O. 1926

Die Religion der Griechen, I , Berlin.

283

Bibliography

Kitchen, K.A. 1965

The Aramaic of Daniel, in: Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, London.

Klein, M . L . 1982

Anthropomorphisms

and anthropopathisms

in the Targumim

of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem. 1986

Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, I , Cincinnati.

Klein, R.W. 1966

Studies in the Greek Texts of the Chronicler, Harvard diss., Cambridge.

1969

Old Readings in IEsd; the List of Returnees from Babylon, HTR 62, pp. 99-107.

Komlosh, Y. 1973

The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations, Tel Aviv [Hebrew].

Kooij, A. van der 1991

On the Ending of the Book of 1 Esdras, Proceedings of the X V I I Congress of the IOSCS 1989, Atlanta, pp. 37-49.

1991* Zur Frage des Anfangs des

1. Esrabuches, ZAW

pp. 239-252.

Kraeling, E.G. 1953

The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, New Haven.

Kropat, A. 1909

Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (BZAW 16), Giessen.

103,

284

I Esdras

Kutscher, E.Y. 1974

The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (IQlsa"),

Leiden.

1977

Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, Jerusalem [Hebrew].

1982

A History of the Hebrew Language, Leiden.

Lagarde, P. de 1863

Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien, Leipzig.

Lammert, F. 1927

ZwuoTo<|)üXaKcs, BW 2, 5, p. 991-992.

Laqueur, R. 1911

Ephoros, Hermes 46, pp. 171-173 (note).

Leiter, N . 1985

Assimilation and Dissimilation Techniques in the L X X of the Book of Balaam, Textus 12, pp. 79-95.

Leuze, O. 1935

Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien, Halle.

Liver, J. 1964

The Sequence of Persian Kings in Ezra and Nehemiah, M.H. Segal Volume, Jerusalem, pp. 127-138 [Hebrew].

Marquart, J. 1896

Fundamente

israelitischer

Göttingen, pp. 44-47.

und indischer

Gesch-ichte,

285

Bibliography

Marquis, G. 1986

Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the L X X and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel, Textus X I I I , pp. 59-94

Martin, R A . 1974

Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (SCS 3), Missoula.

Mayser, E. 1934

Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der

Ptolemaerzeit,

Berlin and Leipzig.

Meyer, E. 1896

Die Entstehung des Judenthums, Halle a. S.

Milik, J.T. 1976

The Books of Enoch, Oxford.

Min, Y.J. 1970

The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah, diss. Jerusalem

Mosis, R. 1973

Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichts­ werkes, Freiburg im Breisgau.

Moulton, W.J, 1899

Über die Überlieferung und den textkritischen Werth des dritten Esrabuches, ZAW 19, pp. 209-258.

1900

ibid, 20. pp. 1-35.

286

I Esdras

Mowinckel, S, 1964

Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, I , Oslo, pp. 7-28.

Muraoka, T. 1972

Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon, RB 8.

1984

A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Index to I Esdras (SCS 16), Chico, California.

1986

A Computer-generated 'Perfect' Concordance?, Biblica 67, pp. 565-567.

Myers, J.M. 1965

Ezra-Nehemiah (AB), New York.

1974

I&Il Esdras (AB), New York.

Nestle, E. 1893

Marginalien und Materialien, Tübingen, pp. 23-31.

Neuman, A.A. 1952

Josippon and the Apokrypha, JQR 43, pp. 1-26.

Panchatantra 1949

The Panchatantra, translated from Sanskrit by A. W. Ryder, Bombay.

Payne Smith, R. 1901

Thesaurus Syriacus D, Oxford.

Pelletier, A. 1962

Flavius Josephe adaptateur de la Lettre d'Aristée, Paris.

287

Bibliography

Peretz, Y. 1968

Juxtaposition of Proper Noun and Adjective, Fourth World Congress

of Jewish Studies I I , Jerusalem, pp. 129-133

[Hebrew].

Pfeifer, G. 1967

Ursprung

und Wesen der Hypostasenvorstellungen

im

Judentum, Stuttgart.

Pfeiffer, R H . 1949

History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha, Chapter I: I Esdras (The Greek Ezra), New York, pp. 233-257.

Pisano, S. 1984

Additions or Omissions in the BooL· of Samuel (OBO 57), Göttingen.

Pohlmann, A.A. 1859

Über das Ansehen des apokryphischen dritten Buches Esdras, 77iß41,pp. 257-275.

Pohlmann, K.F. 1970

Studien im dritten Esra, Göttingen.

Pohlmann, K.F. 1980

3. Esra-Buch (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit I, 5), Gütersloh.

Polzin, R. 1976

Late Biblical Hebrew (HSM 12), Missoula.

I Esdras

288 Pope, H. 1907

The Third Book of Esdras and the Tridentine Canon, JThSt 8, pp. 218-232.

Qimron, E. 1986

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29), Atlanta, Georgia.

Rabin, C. 1962

The Ancient Versions and the Indefinite Subject, Textus 2, pp. 60-76.

Rainey, A.F. 1969

The Satrapy "Beyond the River", Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology I , pp. 51-78.

Riessler, P. 1899

Das Buch Daniel, Stuttgart.

1907

Der textkritische Wert des dritten Esrabuches, BZ 5, pp. 146-158.

Rosenthal, F. 1963

A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, Wiesbaden.

Rudolph, W. 1945/48 Der Wettstreit der Leibwächter des Darius, ZAW 61, pp. 176-190. 1949

Esra und Nehemia (HAT), Tübingen.

1955

Chronikbücher (HAT), Tübingen.

Bibliography

289

Rundgren, F. 1957

Zur Bedeutung von οίκογενής in 3 Esra 3, 1, Eranos 55, pp. 145-152.

Ryan, J.K. 1956

Magna est Veritas et praevalebit (3 Ezra), AER 135, pp. 116-124.

Sarfatti, G.B. 1987

The Use of the Syntagm ‫ נמצא עושה‬in Mishnaic Hebrew, Language Studies II-III, Jerusalem, pp. 225-243.

Schaeder, H.H. 1930

Esra der Schreiber, Halle a. S.

Snaked, Sh. 1984

From Iran to Islam; Notes on Some Themes in Transmission, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 4, pp. 31 ‫־‬67.

Schalit, A. 1947

The Date and Place of the Story about the Three Bodyguards of the King in the Apocryphal Book of Ezra, Bulletin of the Jewish

Palestine Exploration

Society

13, pp.

119-128

[Hebrew]. 1954

Κοίλη Συρία from the Mid-Fourth Century to the Beginning of the Third Century B.C., Scripta Hierosolymitana 1, pp. 64-77.

1969

König Merodes, Berlin, pp. 705-708.

I Esdras

290 Schurer, E. 1986

The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bx.-a.d. 135) (eds. G. Vermes; F. Millar, M . Goodman), I I I , Edinburgh.

Seeligmann, I.L. 1948

The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, Leiden.

Segal, M . H . 1943

The Books of Ezra-Nehemiah, Tarbiz 14, pp. 81-103 [Hebrew].

Segert, S.

1975

Altaramaische Grammatik, Leipzig.

Smith, M . 1971

Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York.

Sollamo, R. 1979

Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions

in the

Septuagint,

Helsinki. Sperber, A, 1959-73 The Bible in Aramaic, I-IV, Leiden.

Stern, M . 1981

The Hellenistic Period, in: The History of Eretz Israel, HI, Jerusalem, pp. 9-190 [Hebrew].

Talmon, Sh. 1960

Double Readings in the MT, Textus 1 (1960), pp. 144-184.

Bibliography

291

Talmon, Sh. 1961

Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8, pp. 335-383.

1975

The Textual Study of the Bible - A New Outlook, in: F.M. Cross, and Sh. Talmon, eds., Qummn and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge Mass.-London, pp. 321-400.

1976

Ezra and Nehemiah, IDB Suppl. Vol., Nashville, pp. 317-328.

Talshir, D. 1988

A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, VT 38, pp. 165-193.

1988* The References to Ezra and the Books of Chronicles in B. Baba Bathra 15a, V f 38, pp. 358-360.

Talshir, Z. 1982

I Esdras - A Portrait of a Literal Translation, Proceedings of the Eighth Congress for Jewish Studies, I , Jerusalem, pp. 47-52.

1983

The Transmission of the Second Temple Founding Tradition, /. L . Seeligmann Volume - Essays on the Bible and the Ancient East (eds. A. Rote and Y. Zakovitch), I , Jerusalem, pp. 347-359 [Hebrew],

1984

First

Esdras

- Origin and Translation,

Diss. Jerusalem

[Hebrew]. 1984* The Milieu of 1 Esdras in the light of its Vocabulary, De Septuaginta - Studies in honour ofJ.W. Wevers, Mississauga, pp. 129-147. 1985

Review of T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Index to I Esdras (SCS 16), Chico, California 1984, Biblica 66, pp. 438-440.

292

I Esdras

Talshir, Z. 1986

Double Translations in the Septuagint, VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (SCS 23), Jerusalem, pp. 21-63.

1986* Linguistic Development and the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the Septuagint, Scripta Hierosolymitana 33, pp. 301-320. 1995

The Story of the Three Youths (I Esdras 3-4) - towards the Question of the Language of its Vorlage, Textus X V I I I , pp. 135-155 (in collaboration with D. Talshir).

1996

The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography, VT X L V I , pp. 213-236.

Tedesche, S.S. 1938

A Critical Edition of !Esdras, Diss, New Haven.

Thackeray, H.J. 1898

Esdras, HDB, I , New York, pp. 758-763.

1909

A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge.

Theis, J. 1910

Geschichtliche

und literarkritische

Fragen

in Esra

1-6,

Münster.

Torrey, C.C. 1910

Ezra Studies, Chicago.

1945

A Revised View of First Esdras, Umis Ginzberg Volume, New York, pp. 395-410.

Jubilee

293

Bibliography

Τον, Ε . 1978

Studies in the Vocabulary of the Septuagint, Tarhiz 47, pp. 120-138 [Hebrew]

1981

The Text-Critical

Use of the Septuagint in Biblical

Research,

Jerusalem. 1982

The Representation of the Causative Aspects of the Hiph'il in die LXX, Biblica 63, pp. 417-424.

1992

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis-Assen / Maastricht, pp. 187-197.

Treuenfels, A. 1850

Über das apocryphische Buch Esra, Literaturblatt des Orients, 15, pp. 231-235; 16, pp. 245-250; 17, pp. 257-262; 18, pp. 281-287; 40, pp. 633-636; 41, pp. 650-655; 42, pp. 663-677; 43, pp. 682-685; 44, pp. 693-697; 45, pp. 713-718; 48, pp. 762-765; 49, pp. 774-777.

Turner, N . 1976

A Grammar of New Testament Greek (by J.H. Moulton), PV: Style, Edinburgh.

Walde,Β. 1913

Die Esrabiicher der Septuaginta, Freiburg.

Wasserstein, A. 1983

Greek Elements in Ancient Jewish Literature, IL. Seeligmann Volume - Essays on the Bible and the Ancient East (eds. A. Rofi and Y. Zakovitch), I I , Jerusalem, pp. 483-498 [Hebrew].

294

I Esdras

Weiss, R. 1979

The Aramaic Targum of Job, Tel Aviv [Hebrew].

Widengren, G. 1957

Quelques rapports entre Juifs et Iraniens à l'Époque des Parthes, Volume du Congres Strasbourg 1956 (SVT4), pp. 197-241.

Willi, Th. 1972

Die Chronik als Ausleung, Göttingen.

Williamson, H.G.M. 1977

Israel in the Book of Chronicles, Cambridge, esp. pp. 12-36.

1982

1 and 2 Chronicles (New Century Bible), London.

1987

Did the Author of Chronicles Also Write the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah?, Bible Review 3, pp. 56-59.

York, H.C. 1909-10 The Latin Versions of First Esdras, AJSL 26, pp. 253-302.

Zakovich, Y. 1978

The Literary Pattern of Three-Four in the Bible, Dissertation, Jerusalem [Hebrew].

Zimmermann, F. 1963-64 The Story of the Three Guardsmen, JQR ns 54, pp. 179-200.

Zunz, L. 1832

Dibre Hajamim oder die Bücher der Chronik, in: Die gottes­ dienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt, Berlin, pp. 12-34.

INDEX

Genesis

1 Samuel

1:26 1:28 2:24 4:21 15:2-3 29:17 39:21-23

1:18 25:3 28:2 28:6 31

68 68 70 89 99 92 88

Exodus 1:11 3:8 12:12 28 28:26 (30)

97 241 96 252 249

Leviticus 8:8

249

Numbers 263

21:22

263

27:21

249

33:4

96

Deuteronomy 1:17

91

10:17

91 97

23

120

31:28

255

33:8

249

120

8:13

120

10:39

258

11:23

255

12:7

255

18:10

255

Judges 11:36

26 263 26 26

1 Kings 1:25

251

4:5 5:27 13 13:1-3

261 98 19 17

2:20 17 22 22:2

241 30 18 20

23:15-18 23:24-27 23:25 23:29-30 23:33 24:19 25:19

17 16 19 19 159 152 262

257 246

Jeremiah 7:10 10:10 31 (38)S 32:18 33:9

90 76 120 75 95

Ezekiel 96

42:14

2:21-23

90

52

Zechariah 3:8

52

6:12-13

52

Psalms 8:6-9 19:2(1) 19:10(9) 31:6 (5) 103:22 104:31-32 119:84 145:10 145:13 148:2 148:7 149:19

68 75 76 76 75 75 96 75 76,91 75 75 96

Proverbs 8-9 25:1

76 22,261

Job 28 36:10

76 246

Ecclesiastes 1:4-7 2:7

Isaiah 8:1 19:18

Joshua 8:9

2 Samuel 8:16-18 14:26 20:23-26 21-24

2 Kings

20:17

20:11

Haggai 93 92 89 249 19

60 99

Esther 1:6-7

90

1:14 1:20 2:7 2:21 6:2 8:15 9:4

262 89 92 89 96 90 256

296

I Esdras

Daniel 1:2 2:1 2:4 2:5 2:11 2:16 2:18 2:19 2:23 2:27 2:28 2:31 2:37 2:48 3:2 3:26 3:29 3:32 4:16 4:21 4:21(24) 4:27 5:1 5:7 5:16 5:18 5:19 5:21 5:27 5:29 6:1 6:19-20 6:27 7:2 7:3 7:5 7:14 7:17 7:27 8:8 8:22 11:36 12:1

1-6

250-251 93-30 225 263,225 98,225 225 266 266 90 266 266 100 90,242 100 90 266 263 266 153 264 153,264 242 225 90,225 90 266 95 266 96 90 38 93 75,95 216 216 216 90 216 90 216 216 225 96

Ezra Iff 1-10

22 104

5,35,40 58,108 1 3-4,36,38,48 79,81,108,109 l:l‫־‬3a 3,27,28 1:1 27,119 206,235 1:2 145,175,214 234,263,266 1:3 132,140 145,202 1:4 117 1:5 154,206,214 1:6 117,120 121,145,235 1:7-11 47 1:7 235,251 1:8 54,198 1:9-10 249 1:10 162,176,210 1:11 54,198 236,241 1:12 152 1:14 236 2:1-4:5 34 38,43,45 46,108-109 2 26,33,42,45 46,59,79,81 2:1-63 165 2:1 130,146 238,258 2:2 152 2:6 117 2:7 154,206 214,255 2:8 117 2:12 156 2:16 165 2:17 163 2:42 154 2:57 165 2:59 152 2:61-62 171 2:61 78,125,258 2:62 198,202 245,252 2:63 8,151,156 160,176,229

2:64 2:65 2:66-67 2:68 2:69 2:70 3:1-4:5 3 3:1 3:2 3:3

3:4 3:5 3:6-12 3:6 3:7

3:8

3:9 3:10

3:11 3:12

3:13 4 4:1-5 4:1 4:2

238,249,252 127,130 171,239 147,161,253 233 114,156 186,228 172,207 250,252 25,34 131,258 26,42 41,46,56 25,34,128 162,202,210 120,129 202,212,217 29,145 160,172 188,246,252 158,160,176 189,193,212 149,163 193,216,252 102 41,210 49,123 157,189,200 212,230,238 41,146 151,154 159,160-161 192,194,205 145,152 173.194,232 41,161 163,198 205,241,252 41,129 145,205,241 41,71 72,86,123 160,186,206 156,236 35 47 154,203,214 163,186 202,210,234

Index

297

4:3

146,150 163,186

4:4

159,194 195,234,241 3536 43,150 155,156,168 3-4,36 43,108,109 35-36

4:5

4:6-24 4:6-23 4:6-11

36,139 167,256 101 139 37,101 157,212

4:6 4:7-8 4:7 4:8 4:9-10 4:9 4:11-12 4:11 4:12 4:13 4:14

4:15

4:16 4:17

4:18 4:19

4:20 4:21 4:22 4:23

37,192 243,262 38 38,139,243 152 157 35,39,149 170,188,202 35,97.120 166,176,258 40,98 102,137 143,152,251 143,157,162

163,168,176 188,191,213 217,238,241 35,143 152,217,Z34 38,139,143 146,163,192 235,243,256,262 160,200,228 162,163 19737 188,241 97,137,145 237,238,242 35,147,227 207,217,228 38,139,149 159,161,189 202,213,228,236

4:24

35-3638 42,140,161 168,176,212

5-6 5:1-6:22 5 5:1 ff 5:1 5:2 5:3-4 5:3 5:4 5:5

5:6 5:7 5:8

5:9 5:10 5:11

5:12

5:13 5:14

5:15 5:16 5:17

5:21 6 6:1 6:2 6:3

42 4 47 42 36,150 168,176 202 176 98,105 143,208 155,166,205 138,143 149,198 235,244 150,217,230 166,176 152,162 169,176,204 241,242,244,246 41,131 205,227 159,171 207,257 11,100 161,163 175,235,266 147,155 161,195 227,241,266 129,154 206,210,227 54,123 129,143,156 164,176,226 145,147 159,227 203,237 123,138 152,160,168 213,245,264 241 48 156,160 207,213 197,235 143,159

6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:8-9 6:8

162,176,206 48,151 170,227,242 130,148 226,245 48,169 218,242 53,124,138 53,103 48,97 131,147,148 169,234,244

6:9

48,143 159-160,168 175,192,193 195,212,234,238 6:10 148,232 234,266 6:11 188,228,235 246,257,263 6:12 150,160 6:13-14 252 6:13 88,143,199 6:14 ...150,151,162 188,194,206 6:15 155,210 6:16 127,147 160,212 6:17 24,147,192 171,235,255 6:18

138,169 175,198 212,252,254

6:19 6:20 6:21

152,210 169 25,159,192 194,236,257 118,138,154 160,173,188 2531,40

6:22 7-10 7:1-10:44 7 7:1 7:2 7:5 7:6 7:7

4 47 162,188 206,212,234 156 211,252 193,199 206,212,217 25,206

298 7:8-9 7:8 7:9 7:10 7.T1-12 7:11

7:12 7:13 7:14 7:15

7:16 7:17 7:18 7:19 7:20-22 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:23 7:24 7:25 7:26 7:27 7:28 8:1-16 8:1 8-4-14 8:5 8:10 8:12 8:15-16 8:15 8:16 8:17

I Esdras 210 166 189,206 145,194 210,218 192,256 ..151,163 222,243 246,252,256 175 130,187,230 237,242,264 148,207,215 227,242,261 148,157 187,218 227,242,261 145,160 ..163,187,199 48,147,154 146,227,264 127,143 156-157,211 48 148,211 237,250 145,266 143,168,193 146,148 154,212,175 48,97,197 157 96,137,148 158,211,236 131,148,206 123,147 186,242,261 165 127,186 230,259 ...... 215 ... 1>‫י‬5 165 162 203 118,175,218 165 113,143 192,194

8:19 8:20 8:21

8:22

8:23 8:24 8:25

8:26 8:27 8:28 8:29 8:30 8:31 8:33 8:34 8:35 8:36 9-10 9:1 9:2 9:3 9:4-5 9:4

9:5-6 9:5 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:9 9:11

203,214,252 152 186,257 118,145 157,161 174,218,235

9:12 9:14 9:15

49:105

10:1 10:2

129,139 146,166,231 123,145 152,186,254 25,155 157,186 238,242,245 215 105,151 166,249,236 250 159,177 186,254 163,205 205,210 163 210 24,152 211 3032 120,164,186 195,200,246 186,189 195,246 57,201 234,238,242 138 113,144 156,169 195,211,227 176 57,160,238 132,146,161 163,176,193 123,144,164 195,210,235 124,154 198,217 39,45 149,160,199 129,144,167 195,216,246

129,203,233 129,131 144,193 194,234 3,7 22 , 32-33,107 130,205,210 120,195

10

103..

203,246 143,148 157,167,194 204

.

10:4 10:5

. .. 25,186 203,234,254 130,170,203 145,189

10:6 10:7 10:8

145,186 192,252 154,214,230 151,194,203 195,241,246 117,210 158,225,234 160,186 212,235

10:9 10:10 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:14 10.15 10:16

10:17 10:18-43 10:19 10:20-43 10-25 10:27

143,258 121,138 149,158,176 , 186,234,252 234 165 118,194-195 191

10:2830 10-44

.. 191 191 191 ‫? ו‬4

Nehemiah 1-7 .3,2231,25 1:1-7:71(72) 4 8 LT - 7 4 2 47-48,50 50 2:1-6 2:5 50 2:7 49 2:8 49 Sfi 49 2:9 50 4:16-17

Index 5:4 5:13 7 7:4-5 7:5 7:6 7:72-8:1 7:72 ff 7:72

97 94 3,26 31 96 32 31 33 4,25,32^3 34,107,129 131,164,210,258 8 3,7,2231 32,104,107,262 8:1-12(13) 4 8:1-2 7 8:1 3237 128,151,155 199,234,252 8:2 57,128 159,177 192,234,252 8:3 128,155 159,234 8:4 151,156 189,192 198,211,252 8:5-12 236 8:5 156,177 201,205 8:6 203,232,241 8:7 156,159-160 188,192,208 8:8 152,167,188 8:9-10 176 8:9 8,57,151 154-155,167 208,216,227,252 8:10 166 8:11 117,174 208,216 8:12 .....15935 8:13-13:31 4 8:13-18 8 8:13 3,6-8,228 8:18-9:1 7 9-13 8,22 9 26 9:33 76 10 107

299 11-13 11 11:1 11:19 12:10 12:12 12:26 12:44 12:47 13:1-3 13:10 13:22

25 26 32 50 51 51 51,104 50 25,4730 32 50 50

1 Chronicles 3:19 9 9:2 10 15:14 22:19 26:15 28:17 29:10-12

52 26 253 19 251 250 119 249 75,90

2 Chronicles 2:11-13 2:15 14:6 15:3 19:7 26:30 30:6-9 34 34:33 35-36 35 35:1-2 35:1 35:2.. 35:3

35:4

35:5-6

10 168 93 ....76 75,91 138 30 9,13-14 17-18,21 18 3-4,104 6,9 185,202 134,152,230 126,129 176,252 122,140 145,156,161 172,175,211,250 126,134 189,192 235,254 202

35:5

129-130,160 172,250,259 35:6 122,135 159,176,207 35:7-8 263 35:7 152,154 158,160,166 173,192,235,236 35:8-9 159 35:8 135,159 197,228,236 35:9 122,159,186 35:10 117,139 173,175 202,232,254 35:11 167 35:12 117,119 235,259 35:14 135,152 163,172 175,207,231 35:15 193,199 212,236,262 35:16 122,197,212 35:17 215,230 35:18 122,146,231 35:19 15,169,206 35:20 14,161,237 35:21 122,124 125,143,173 175,199,232 35:22 12,127,159 173,202,230 35:23-24 19 35:23 12,121 159,160,186 35:24 122,160 195,197 20231,237 35:25 117,123 127,145,147 150,154,198 208,235,262 35:26 13,157,195 35:27 13,234,199 36 3,22 36:1-3 14 36:1 130,151,160 202,237,263

300

1 Esdras

36:2 36:3 36:4

36:5 36:6, 36:7

,

36:8

36:9 36:10 36:11 36:12 36:13

36:14 36:15 36:16

36:17

36:18

36:19 36:20-21 36:20 36:21 36:22-23 36:22

.215,237 130,158 159,215 124,159 173,186 202,237263 168,215 205,237 160,176 202,211,241 123,131 166,194 230,234,265 198,215 228,263 150,152,154 202,237,263 215,237 27,154 157,200,218 91,140 154,161,175 197,205,218 145,186 197,231 119,139,147 159,173,195 105,117 121,147,148 235,238265 124,143 175,194-195 207,238,250 135,151 154,211 236,241,263 122,145,193 27 228 27,188,215 3,27,28 119

I Esdras 1 1:1 1:1-2 1:2 1:3

3^204 134,152,230 185202 .126,176252 122.145

156,172 211,242,250 1:4 126,134 140,161,175 189,192,235,254 1:5-6 185,202 1:5 129-130 160,172 235,250,259 1:6 122,135 159,176,207 1:7 135,152,154 158,160,166 173,192,197 228235-236,263 1:8 135,159 1:9 122,159,186 1:10 117,119 139,167,173 175,202,232 235,254,259 1:12-13 152,172 175,231 1:13 135,163,207 1:14 193,199 212,236262 1:16 122,197,212 1:17 215,230 1:19 122,146,231 1.20 206 1:21-22 15,18,19 103,169,177 1:21 17,265 1:22 18 1:23 14,129 159,161,237 1:24 125,232 1:25 122,124 125,143,173 175,199,232 1:26 12,127 173,202,230 1:27-29 19 1:27 12,121 159,186 1:28 122,160 1:29 195,197 202,211,237 1:30 117,145

. 146,147 150,154,198 208,235,262 1:31 13.123 127.157 195,199,234 14 1:32-33 1:32 . 130,151 202,237,263 159215,237 1:33 1:34 . 130,158,215 1:35 159,237,263 124,173 1:36. .. 186,202 1:37 168,215 1:38 . , , 205,237 1:39 160,176 202,211241 1:40 123,131,166 194,234265 228 1:4142 1:41 198,215 230,263 1:42 215 1:43 150,154 1:44 152,160,202 215,237,263 1:45 154,157 200,218 1-46 91,140 154,161,175 197205,218 1:47 145,146 186,197,231 1:48 119,139,147 159,173,195 105,117,121 1:49 , 147-148,194 207,235238,265 124,143,175 1:50 . 195,238,250 1:51, . 135,151 154,211 236,241,263 1:52 , . 145,193 1:53 . . 122,228 1:54-55 188 1:55 215

Index 2 2:1-4:5 2:1-14 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:8 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:13-14 2:14 2:15-25

301 204 43 3,4 119,206 235 145,214 263,266 234 132,140 145,17532 120-121 145,235 235,251 54,198 156,162 176,210 198 54,152 236,241 3,4

36,38,43 36-37 139,167,256 2:15 139,157,192 212,243,256 2:16-18 152 2:16 38,139 243,262 2:17-18 40,176 2:17 39,41,149 170,188,202 2:18 40-41,97 102,137-138 143,166,168,213 236,242,251,258 2:19 143,157,162 163,176,188 191,217,238,241 2:20 143,152 217,234 2:21 38,139,143 146,163,192 235,243,256.262 2:22 160,197 200,207,228 2:23 97,137 145,162,188 237-238,241,242 2:24 14737 2:15-16

217,227-228 2:25

38,40,42,45 109,139,140 149,159,161 176,189,202 212-213,228,236 2:37 266 3:1 ff 42 3:1-5:6 3,4,42^9 3:1-4:41 59 3:1-4:5 45 3:1-16 59 3:1 77,92,99,242 3:3 77,93 3:4 70,83 88,95,253 3:5 60,71,105 3:6 90,99,249 3:7 77,89,168 3:8-11 26 3:8 71,77,95,168 3:9 71 3:12 67 3:13 93 3:14 90 3:17-4:41 59 3:17 84 3:18 3:20 4 4:1 4:2-3 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:6-23 4:6 4:7-9 4:10 4:13 4:14-32 4:14-15 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:17-27 4:17

65,67 65,84 25 84 73 68 69 92 43,98,105 35,43 97 89 68,94,98 67,71 72,77,84 71 65 69,100 69 69,73 69 89

4:18 4:20-21 4:20 4:22 4:23-24 4:23 4:24 4:25 4:27 4:28-31 4:28 4:29

71,92 69 70 98 89 86 43 69,70 100 51,68,69 68,73,266 77

4:31 4:33 4:34-40 4:34-35 4:34 4:35

98 72,84,95 71 68 60,72 74,101

4:36-37 4:36

89 74,75 91,95,101 4:37 66-67,69,72 4:38 75,91 4:39 75,91,96 4:40 74,75,90 91,101,102 4:41, 74,83,94,95 4:42-5:6 60,78-79 4:42-63 59 4:42 44,79,89 95,96,99 4:43 95,99 4:44 44,47,99 4:45 47 4:46 84,99,153 4:47 44,49-50,81 84,95,100,105 4:48 49,101 105,259 4:49 44,48,100 4:50 48,84,99,258 4:51 44,47,48,105 4:52 48,248 4:53 44,48 4:54 50,90,252 4:55 44,50 4:56 50 4:57 44,47 4:58 83

302 4:60 4:63 5-6 5 5:1-6 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4-6 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7-70 5:745 5:740 5:7 5:8

i Esdras 90 44,90,105 25 41204 59,103-34 104 49,104 84,104,155 51 104,259 51-52,55,104 42,104 4,43

42 165 130 146,152 238,258 5:15-16 165 5:28 154 5:34 165 5:36 152 5:38 78,125, 171,252,258 5:39 198,202,245 5:40 8,151 156,160,176 229,238,249,252 5:41 127,130 147,161 171,239.253 5:42 233 5.43 114,156228 5:44 172,207 250252 5:45 34,131 163258 5:46-70 42 5:46 34,128,202 5:47 120,202 5:48 129,212,217 5:49 29,145 159-160 172,188,246 5:50 158,160,176 189,193,212 5:51 149,163 193,216 5:52-60 102

5:52 5:53

41,210 43,123 157,168,189 200,212,230,238 5:54 146,205 5:55 41,168 5:56 41,145 151-152,154 160-162,173 192,194,232 5:57 161,163,198 205,241252 5:58 129,145 205,241 5:59 41,205,241 5:60 41,123 160,186,206 5:62 156,236 5:63 154,168,186 203,214,255 5:65 163,186,202 5:66 210,234 5:67 146,163,186 5:68 43,150 5:69 159,194 195,234,241 5:70 36,42 43,150,155 156,168,212 6:1-7:15 4 6 43,204 6:1 ff 42 6.T 36,150 168,176 6:2 202,257 6:34 176 6:3 208 6:4 98,155 166,205 6:5 244 6:6 138,143 149,198,235 6:7 150,166,176 217,230,244 6:8 29,152 169,204 241-242,244 6:9 162,176 242246

6.10 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:17-18 6:17

6:18 6:19 6:20-21 6:20 6:21 6:22 6:23 6:24 6:25 6:26

6:27 6:28 6:29

6:30 6:31 6:33 7 7:1 7:2

41,131 205,227 159,171 207,257 11,161 175,235,266 163 155,195,227 241,244,266 147,161,241 129,154 206,210,227 44 54,123 129,143,156 164,176,226 145,147 159,227 203,237 152 160,245 123,138 213,264 156,160,197 207,213,235 159,162 176,206 143,151 170,227,242 130,148 226,245 53,124 138,169 218,242,244 97,131 147,169,244 53,102,175 195210,234 143,159 160,192-193 212,234,238 232,234,266 188,228,235 246,257,263 143,150,160 25,204 199 88,143 244,252

Index

303

7:3

150-151 ‫ ו‬6‫? ק‬fv.

8:15 8:16

7:4

188,194

7:5 7:6-72a

155,210 31

8:17

7:6

177.147

8:18 8:19 8:20

160.212 7:7-8 7:7 7:8 7:9

192 147 171,235255 169,175,198 212,252,254

7:10 7:11 7:13 7:14 7:15 7:16 7:26 7:28 8:1-9:36 8 8:1 ff 8:1 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:7 8:8

8:9 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13

8:14

152,210 169 159,192 194,205,236 118,160,173 138,154,188 177 257 235 4 204 34 162,206 212,234

210-211,252 151,199 212,217 193,206 206 166,189 206,210 145,149 194,210 163,192 203,222,243 246,252,256-257 156,175,192 187,203,230 237,242,264 148,215 227,242,261 198,207 145,148,157 160,163,177 187,199,218 227,242,261 147

8:21 8:22 8:23 8:24 8:25 8:26 8:27 8:28-13 8:28 8:31-40 8:32 8:36 8:41 8:42-43 8:42 8:43 8:44-45 8:44 8:45 8:47 8:48 8:49 8:50 8:51 8:52 8:53 8:54 8:55 8:56 8:57 8:58

154 130,146 188,227,264 127,143,156 157,211,218 211,237,250 145,266 143,168 193,238 146,154 175,212,266 97,197 157 96,137 211,236,257 131,148,206 147,158,186 235,242,261 123 165 127,186 230,259 215 165 165 118,218 203 175 165 203,214 143 113,192 194,252 152 186,257 118,161,174 145,157 218,235 105 49,129,139 146,166,231 49,123,145 152,186,254 155,157 238,242,245 105,151,166 215,236,249 250 159,177

186 2.54 8:59 8:60 8:61 8:62 8:63 8:64 8:65 8:66 8:67 8:68 8:69

8:70 8:71 8:72 8:73 8:74 8:75 8:76 8:78 8:79 8:80 8:81 8:82 8:83.. 8:84..

155,163,205 205,210 163 210 152 211 186 120,164 195,200,246 186,189 195,246 57,234 238,242,252 113,138 144,156,169 195,211,227 ‫״‬ 57,160,176 203,238,252 132,161 163 176 146,193 144,210 123,164 195,235 198,217 124,154 160,199 39,45 129 144,167 195,216,246 233 129,203 193,210 129,131,210 131

8:85 8:86 234 8:87 144,193 8:88- 9:36 32 8:88 130,205 8:89 195,203,246 8:90. 143.148 157,167,194 8:91 204 8:92, 186,203 234,254 9 204 9:1 130,203

304 9:2 9:3 9:4 9:5-6 9:5 9:7 9:8 9:9 9:10 9:11 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:16

9:17 9:18 9:19-35 9:20 9:21-33 9.26 9:28 9:29 9:31 9:36 9:37-55 9:37

9:38 9:39 9:40

9:41 9:42 9:43 9:44 9:45-54 9:45 9:46 9:47

I Esdras 120,130 170,203 145,189 145,186 192,252 203 154214 230,255 151,194203 241 195,246 117210 158,234 186 160,212235 143,258 121,138 149,158,176 186,234,252 234 210 165 118,194-195 191 191 191 191 191 124 4^2 3234 129,131 164,210,258 128,234 52,151 155,199,252 57,128 159,177 210,234252 128,155 159,234 151,156,189 198,211,252 192 192 236 156,205 159,177,241 203232

9:48

9:49 9:50 9:51 9:52 9:53 9:54 9:55

152,156,159 160,167,188 192,203,208 8,57 151,216,252 155,167 208,227 166,176,203 154 117,174 208,216 159,162235 198,228

1-3 Mace 1 Mace 2-4 Mace 2-3 Mace 4 Mace

6:29 6:31 49ff 49:1-4 49:1-3 49:4-6 50:11

89 89 100 20 55,106 107 89

Susanna 64

91

Bel 10

Maccabees 1-4 Mace

Sirach

251 257261 256,257 258,260 258-259 86 263,265 257,265

251

Jubilees 12:17

63

Enoch

4QEn 2n30

95

4QEneXXIL3 4QEn 4,l 4QEn l V, 3 4QEn l XI,2 4QEn l 1V,16

96 95 101 102 96

d

c

c

d

1 Mace

5

1:47 1:83 2:15 3:38 6:28 10:29 10:31 11:28 12:7

251 251 262 261 261 48 48 48,258 257

2 Mace 1:18 2:13 3:15 9:18 9:25

56 56 252 256 263

3 Mace 3:20 3:25 4:1

252 257 257

Genesis Apocryphon 2:7 3 19:24 20:14

91-92 95 99 96

LXX

3Kgdms 12:24, §§g,k,1 78 12:24a-z 46 Isa52A 89 Esth 8:12 (Add E 1) 256 Esth 8:13 (Add E l l ) 264 Dan 261,263 Dan 12:3 91 Dan 6:12(13) 257 Esth 89,263

305

Index Kraeling

Onkelos Deut 33:7

96

10:10

Palestinian Tar gum

Dittenberger

Gen 4:13 Gen 49:15

56:20-30 139

100 97

255 264

Herodotus

Mishna Nidda 5:6

98

127

3,91

260

Hecataeus of Abdera Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 56b 20 Yoma 29a 22 Rosh ha-Shana 18b.... 266 Ta‫׳‬anit22b 20 Bava Batra 10a 62 Bava Batra 15-16...22 Sanhédrin 93b 57 Sanhédrin 104a 20 Palestinian Talmud Demai 22d 98 Shevi‫׳‬it36c 98 Mo'ed Qatan81c....86 Sanhédrin 18a 76 Midrash Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Shira 5 93 Bereshit Rabba Pisqa 38 62 Echa Rabba Pisqa 1 20 Cowley 16:8 30:1 30:11-12

153 153 98

Driver Letters 1,23,5

99

A g A p 1,186

264

Eupolimos-Eusebius Praepar. Evangel. .10 Zenon Papyri 355,122

257

Letter of Aristeas 22 181-194

259 63

Josephus Antiquities X§76 XI §21 XI §§31-32 XI §80 XI §165 XI §169 XII§28 XV §216

12 38 77 41 56 56 259 259

Josippon 6:29 ff 6:30 6:35 6:37 6:47 6:65-66 6:73-74 6:130

77 89 89,94 67 66,67 93 67 67

9